Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2012 January 9

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 8 January	10 January >

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 merge to Gettysburg battlefield. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 10:47, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Zeigler's Grove

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

Seems to lack enough notability to justify having its own article. Wild Wolf (talk) 23:24, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:43, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:43, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to a List of minor locations of the Gettysburg Battlefield (better title desired?) page. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:42, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Nothing about this site to distinguish it from any other wooded site. 76.7.231.130 (talk) 01:00, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge – into Gettysburg battlefield or similar. Ma®©usBritish ^[chat] 23:21, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge agree with above poster. -- Alyas Grey : talk 23:01, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Gettysburg Battlefield. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 10:48, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Stevens Knoll

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

Seems to lack enough notability to justify its own article. Wild Wolf (talk) 23:31, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:40, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:41, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to a List of minor locations of the Gettysburg Battlefield (better title desired?) page. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:41, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No major independent significance within battle (unlike, say, the Peach Orchard or Devil's Den). Unlikely that a reader would find this article except by following a Wikilink from one of the main battle articles, or from Greenleaf T. Stevens; and that reader would be annoyed to find a stub with no additional useful information to justify the departure from the main article. Ammodramus (talk) 00:10, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Nothing to distinguish this from other hills on other battlefields. 76.7.231.130 (talk) 01:03, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge – into Gettysburg battlefield or similar. Ma®©usBritish ^[chat] 23:20, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Gettysburg Battlefield. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 10:50, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Rose Run

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

Seems to lack enough notability to justify having its own article. Wild Wolf (talk) 23:34, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:40, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:40, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to a List of minor locations of the Gettysburg Battlefield (better title desired?) page. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:41, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and incorporate battle-related information into Battle of Gettysburg or Battle of Gettysburg, Second Day. No notability apart from that related to battle (notability of Lee-Meade Inn is questionable, and in any case does not transfer to its location). Unlikely that any reader would come to this article except by following a Wikilink from one of the main battle articles; and such a reader would only be irritated by clicking the link and then finding a stub that didn't contain anything of importance that wasn't already in the initial article. Ammodramus (talk) 23:54, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fail to see how a tiny stream could be notable. 76.7.231.130 (talk) 01:04, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge – into Gettysburg battlefield or similar. Ma®©usBritish ^[chat] 23:20, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Gettysburg Battlefield. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 12:15, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Knoxlyn Ridge

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

Seems to lack enough notability to justify having its own article. Wild Wolf (talk) 23:37, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:39, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:39, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to a List of minor locations of the Gettysburg Battlefield (better title desired?) page. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:41, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and incorporate information into Battle of Gettysburg or Battle of Gettysburg, First Day. No notability apart from that related to battle. Unlikely that any reader would come to this article except by following a Wikilink from one of the main battle articles; and such a reader would only be irritated by clicking the link and then finding a stub that didn't contain anything that wasn't already in the initial article. Ammodramus (talk) 23:46, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fail to see from the article how this is notable. 76.7.231.130 (talk) 01:05, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge – into Gettysburg battlefield or similar. Ma®©usBritish ^[chat] 23:20, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Super Star (Arabic TV series)#Super Star 3 (2005-2006). Der yck C. 22:01, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Asma Othmani

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

This singer does not appear to have sufficient substantial RS coverage; her limited coverage appears to relate primarily to her fifth-place finish in Super Star 3, which I understand does not in itself confer notability on a singer. Zero refs, though it does have a non-independent EL. Epeefleche (talk) 23:28, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - generally these talent show contestants only get a separate article if they are notable outside of the TV series. I can't see any evidence that Othmani has gone on to bigger and greater things! Sionk (talk) 00:49, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 15:57, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 15:57, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Super Star (Arabic TV series)#Super Star 3 (2005-2006). I see no independent notabbility for a separate article. The best I could find in sourcing was this passing mention in AllAfrica -- Whpq (talk) 15:42, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Talent show contestant not notable. Fails WP:GNG and WP:BIO.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 17:32, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{Let's talk}_{about my edits?} 13:15, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Gabriel Cadis

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

Cadis was murdered, Friday, January 6, 2011 in Jaffa, Israel and article was created within 24 hours. Cadis was head of Jaffa's Greek Orthodox Church Association. The suspects in his murder case are also Christian. Jaffa is part of Tel-Aviv. In 2000, Tel-Aviv contained 4,600 Christians. I'm unable to find any information about Cadis before his murder. Google is coming up with all false-positives when doing a date search, so I may have missed something. See WP:NOT#NEWS and WP:BLP1E. Bgwhite (talk) 23:28, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Bgwhite (talk) 23:30, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Bgwhite (talk) 23:30, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment AFD needs to be linked to the article by nom. Right now it is red. Wikifan^{Be nice} 00:01, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's not something the nominator can do. If you click on the red link, you will arrive here at AFD without difficulty. It's a caching or other database problem. Nyttend (talk) 00:07, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Purging the page almost always corrects the problem of the AfD red link in the template. See WP:PURGE for various purging techniques. Northamerica1000^(talk) 11:11, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As noted in the article, Cadis was a popular figure in Jaffa politics. He was the leader of the Greek Orthodox Church. He was murdered at a high-profile event and the suspects include a powerful Arab-Christian family in the Tel Aviv-Jaffa area. Since Christians are a minority in Israel, the killing of a major figure is very notable in the community. Cadis' murder has received press coverage from international press - such as ABC. I concede the importance of Cadis is almost dependent on the murder and in absence of it is likely no article would have been created, however that alone is not a reason for deletion. More info is being released so I would support a "wait and see" approach. It must be emphasized that this was no ordinary murder. I would support a move to "Murder of Gabriel Cadis" or "Killing of Gabriel Cadis." Wikifan^{Be nice} 01:16, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the Israel-related deletion discussions.--Shuki (talk) 19:05, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep prominent figure in the minority community. --Shuki (talk) 19:09, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Could you provide some references from before he was murdered on how a prominent figure he was? I was unable to find any, but his murder is creating alot of false positives when doing a search. Bgwhite (talk) 20:44, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- WE sometimes have such articles moved in the end to "Murder of AB", where the only notable fact is the murder. For the moment I would suggest leaving things as they are and hope that more detail will emerge. Peterkingiron (talk) 23:29, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Appears to meet notability threshold. Quis separabit? 13:44, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Idols (Finland)#Season 2. Redirects are cheap, and this might be a relevant search term. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 10:56, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Pauliina Kumpulainen

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

This singer does not appear to have sufficient RS coverage to meet our notability requirements. Zero gbooks hits. Her coverage at gnews appears to relate primarily to her 7th place finish in the Finnish American Idol, which I do not understand to confer notability on her (in and of itself). Epeefleche (talk) 23:17, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - generally these talent show contestants only get a separate article if they are notable outside of the TV series. It looks like Kumpalainen came last anyway! Sionk (talk) 01:00, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 15:50, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Finland-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 15:50, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete Obviously falls short of WP:GNG. --hydrox (talk) 19:46, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete-- No coverage aside from that in conjunction with the program. I've considered a redirect, but the target article, Idols (Finland) seems to cut off coverage of contestants to the final 6; this contestant was 7th. -- Whpq (talk) 15:50, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to Idols (Finland)#Season 2. I was mistaken on the elimination position. -- Whpq (talk) 15:52, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Idols (Finland)#Season 2. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 10:57, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Henna Heikkinen

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

This singer appears non-notable per wp standards. Limited gnews coverage appears to relate primarily to fifth-place Finnish American Idol placing. Zero gbooks hits that are RSs. Zero article refs. Epeefleche (talk) 23:13, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - generally these talent show contestants only get a separate article if they are notable outside of the TV series. The one source in the article is broken. Sionk (talk) 01:03, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 15:48, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Finland-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 15:48, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete Obviously falls short of WP:GNG. --hydrox (talk) 19:46, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Idols (Finland)#Season 2. I see no independent notabbility for a separate article. -- Whpq (talk) 15:55, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect Agree with above. Not a notable person, but since we already have a Finland Idol article no reason not to redirect.-- Alyas Grey : talk 23:03, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No objection by me to a redirect.--Epeefleche (talk) 23:16, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 10:57, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Norco Atomik

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

This bike lacks substantial RS coverage. Tagged for notability for over 4 years. Zero refs. Epeefleche (talk) 22:44, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 15:32, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 15:32, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this stub. Nothing worth merging even if I could think where. Advert? Peterkingiron (talk) 16:05, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Advert seems possible. Uncertain. Certainly the non-RS refs seem to be mostly regarding sales of the bike.--Epeefleche (talk) 17:38, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Lacks significant coverage in reliable sources. -- Whpq (talk) 15:57, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 18:25, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Rumors and urban legends regarding Sesame Street

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

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

This article mostly repeats various bits of gossip about Sesame Street that are already covered in separate articles. Most of it relates to Bert and Ernie, characters that have their own article where this very issue is mentioned in detail with small snippets of other material related to Sesame Street that could easily be moved to other articles. I see no reason to retain this as a redirect as there would be no obvious place for it to send readers. The Devil's Advocate (talk) 22:27, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 22:40, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. At best this information could be added to existing articles, though I suspect that the information is already present. --Tzadkiel43 (talk) 23:17, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Most of the information in this article is included in other articles. It's at best a list of trivia. As the one who's become the main editor of many Sesame Street articles, I don't think it necessary and adds very little to WP's body of work about this important show. Christine (talk) 06:40, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep - Regarding this nomination, and the two !votes above to delete: what other articles is this information already present in? I didn't see any of this information in the Sesame Street article, other than this very brief, passing mention, which doesn't actually state any of the rumors and urban legends:

"As critic Richard Roeper has stated, perhaps one of the strongest indicators of the influence of Sesame Street have been the enduring rumors and urban legends surrounding the show and its characters, especially about Bert and Ernie."

The same goes for the article Influence of Sesame Street, a very similar one-line sentence without any content from this article. The link in the sentences links to this article being considered for deletion. No personal offense intended, but are these statements of the information being present in other articles based upon fact, or just statements based upon hunches and unqualified by actual facts? Perhaps the nominator and/or delete voters above could provide examples of where this content exists in other articles, because I haven't found this to be the case at this time.

Regarding topic notability, the article should be kept because the topic passes WP:GNG; it has received significant coverage in reliable sources, including:

Los Angeles Times newsblog
USA Today - Graham, Jefferson (1992-04-30). "Muppet Ernie Is Doing Just Fine". USA Today: p. D3.
Chicago Tribune - Herrmann, Brenda (1992-11-10). "Ernie Rumor Just Won't Die". Chicago Tribune: p. C1.
[Manchester] Union Leader - "Muppet Ernie Keeps His Life." 28 July 1991 (p. F1).
Hartford Courant - Lender, Jon (1992-11-23). "Rest Assured, Ernie the Puppet Has Never Felt Better". Hartford Courant: p. B1.

This article would benefit from the addition of more sources and inline citations, and some expansion, rather than removal from Wikipedia. Northamerica1000^(talk) 11:52, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep, as above. Also, for the years that I was the primary editor of the Sesame Street articles, something Christine is now using to add weight to her delete claim, persistently people would add content to the main Wikipedia article about Ernie and Bert's perceived sexuality, about Veggie Monster, about an HIV+ Muppet.

Veggie?: Two Sesame Street episodes (4115, 4232) have made reference to the Veggie Monster rumor, as has a video, as has an official tweet from Cookie Monster, as has two videos posted exclusively to his Facebook fan page. More

Gay?: A film (Ernest & Bertram) and a musical (Avenue Q) have been inspired by the concept of gay puppets, the rumor kicked into high gear in a 1980 book, Ernie has address students at a university to deny the rumor, Bert has denied it on Australian radio, it's been addressed in at least one major book about Sesame Street (Street Gang), and references to their sexuality have been made on Family Guy, American Dad, Glee, Supernatural, The Colbert Report, Greg the Bunny, The King of Queens, The Cleveland Show, and Medium Large. German comedy series Freitag Nacht News has a recurring segment parodying their sexuality. [1]

Simply put, the article is just under-developed. -- Zanimum (talk) 14:42, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Notability is the not the sole basis for inclusion. In this case we have material that really is not sufficient for a separate article. Claims about Bert and Ernie's sexuality can be included in the article on them, as they are already. Ditto to claims about Cookie Monster and the article on him. The stuff about the HIV muppet could be mentioned in connection with the South African show that appeared to spark the rumor. Rather than stacking all this material on to a separate article to make it merely an indiscriminate collection of gossip, it makes more sense to include it in articles pertaining to the subjects mentioned in the rumors.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 17:04, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Any rumor that gets major news outlets to talk about it, should be here. No sense junking up the actual article with this nonsense though. Best to keep it as a side article here. Dream Focus 00:06, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

For heaven's sake, the material about Bert and Ernie is already covered elsewhere and any details that are seen as important here could be moved there. The material about cookie monster is insubstantial and would again be logical to include in that article. An independent article is just pointless.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 20:00, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep per the compelling argument from Northamerica1000. We need to capture these noteable reactions, and per Dream best to have a dedicated article. FeydHuxtable (talk) 15:46, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Northamerica1000's excellent argument. CallawayRox (talk) 20:09, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and merge verifiable information to appropriate articles. Northamerica's argument revolves around two things: that this information is not present elsewhere, and that there is sourcing that confers notability on the topic. I might agree with the first point, although that's not an argument for inclusion of this article. The information ought to be included in Wikipedia. It is verifiable, and it is also interesting! It should be included in relevant articles. Regarding the second point, none of those sources are actually about the topic of this article. They are about individual elements of the topic. There's a big difference between an article covering one such rumor/urban legend regarding Sesame Street and an article covering the topic of rumors and urban legends regarding Sesame Street, and WP:GNG looks for the latter. Coverage of the topic, directly.
I really just don't see the purpose of having this as its own article, and I don't see the justification for it unless sourcing can be found that can establish the phenomenon of rumors about Sesame Street as being independently notable, as a topic, not as a list of examples of said rumors. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 08:19, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have to agree with the nom here. This is an unnecessary content fork. While Sesame Street is obviously notable, that doesn't mean there needs to be a standalone article about the "rumors and legends regarding Sesame Street". Otherwise we could as well create standalone articles like "Rumors and legends about Barack Obama" and "Rumors and legends about Mitt Romney" , we will find plenty sources for it ;-). I think WP is not supposed to be a rumor mill, so any kind of articles named "Rumors about..." become questionable per WP:NOTGOSSIP. The Sesame Street article is 50kB size ,and this rumors content fork is 5kB size, so it is no problem at all to merge this into a section in the Sesame street article. While a redirect page with this name would not be needed, it is likely to be kept for its page history. MakeSense64 (talk) 08:31, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ignore the 5k number, and look at how much text is in the page. No reason to have all of that in the main article. And this isn't gossip. This is about things that made headlines. Its normal for all the controversies about someone/something to be put in a separate article, since it is something notable, and you don't want it junking up the main article. Dream Focus 08:42, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No, it is not normal to put all the controversies about topic in a separate article. That amounts to creating a WP:POVFORK. It is very important to keep the controversies inside the main article for NPOV reasons. Controversies, rumors, legends ... if notable enough to be mentioned, should always be kept in the main article. MakeSense64 (talk) 08:55, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it is. Dungeons & Dragons controversies, Controversies relating to the Six-Day War, Debate over the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, Scouting controversy and conflict, etc. Category:Controversies has ample examples of this. The assassination of JFK has dozens of articles contained in its subgroup. Anything that got media attention, no matter how ridiculous, is kept in a separate article to not distract from the main one. Dream Focus 13:52, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is only done when the controversy is too big and would take over the article. That is the clearly not case here. The article is very small (5kB), there are only 5 items that can easily be merged into the Sesam Street main article or in the individual article about given figure(s) in the show. I don't see how this would create any undue weight problems. Just because there are enough sources that support and describe these rumors, doesn't mean they require a standalone article. MakeSense64 (talk) 06:33, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There's really not a lot to write about here apart from "There's a bunch of silly rumors and they're all not true". It's not "notable" when there are a few amusing newspaper reports about those silly rumors. If it were, we could have thousands of articles that start with "Rumors and urban legends regarding" about pretty much every noteworthy thing, ever. --Conti|✉ 09:48, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - See WP:GNG. This topic has been covered in reliable sources. This discussion is about this one article, not hypothetical articles that may or may not be created. How does this topic fail the General notability guideline? Northamerica1000^(talk) 12:00, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, or possibly merge all of these rumours/legends are mentioned in the articles on the characters in question, except for the abortion rumour. There is no real justification for presenting all these misconceptions in one article, and that's not how the sources do it (all of them just verify information about one of these claims, none actually address the topic of rumours and urban legends in Sesame Street). If there is any information in this article that isn't in one of the character articles then a merge may be appropriate. The Keep opinions are unpersuasive: the fact that some topic passes the GNG doesn't mean it must be included, and as I've already mentioned the sources do not address the topic of this article. Hut 8.5 13:35, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Your stance seems subjective, as in "I don't like it". The topic has been significantly reported upon in reliable sources. Of course mass media isn't going to report upon the verbatim title of this article. Northamerica1000^(talk) 12:04, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not asking for sources which write about "the verbatim title of the article", I'm asking for sources which write about the subject of the article - namely widely believed things about Sesame Street that are not true. This is the relevant question to ask when assessing the notability of the article subject. Nor is it an impossible requirement, and I give two examples below of articles about widely believed myths which do have sources of this kind. Hut 8.5 12:58, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for clarifying! Northamerica1000^(talk) 09:38, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, merging relevant information to appropriate articles (likely Sesame Street, perhaps to individual character discussion. The problem here is that as a spin-off of the main SS article, it's carrying a strong hint of bias towards confrontational aspects of the show. It is not that the information is bad (we should not lose it), but organizing it into this article is not very encyclopedic. This is likely in relation to the original nom's statement: because all the characters of discussion in this article appear to have articles, this info can be pushed off into them. There are perhaps two points that I would take into the main Sesame Street article under "critical reception", that being the relationship between Bert and Ernie, and the introduction of muppet around the HIV concept. Everything else is minor w.r.t. the show, but appropriate in character discussion. Doing that removes the perceived that this article starts with and we lose no information. --MASEM (t) 14:22, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 17:31, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Contil. Just because rumours exist about said topic, that does not mean that said rumours require a separate article, especially when none of them have any credibility. We do not need articles which serve no purpose than to affirm something is not true; otherwise we could go on forever this way. Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 23:44, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If the rumors were true, they'd be facts not rumors. People hear about any of the controversies, then they should have a place to learn about them and clear up any mistakes over what they heard. And it can't go on forever, since only well referenced rumors are listed here. Dream Focus 01:01, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I take issue with your claim that "We do not need articles which serve no purpose than to affirm something is not true". Our notability guidelines are what matters here, not what we "need". If, say, The Wall Street Journal and the New Yorker had published long articles on urban legends about Sesame Street, I would hope that you would change your mind on this. (That being said, the sourcing for this article looks quite thin.) Mark Arsten (talk) 02:30, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

We do have articles such as List of common misconceptions and Misconceptions about tornadoes (a GA) which focus entirely on things that are not true. However both these articles cite sources which do address the topic of the article rather than discussing individual misconceptions. Hut 8.5 12:54, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, much agreed. BTW, thanks for pointing out that tornado article, it looks quite interesting. Mark Arsten (talk) 16:19, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete So far as I can see, no sources give significant coverage to the subject of "rumors and urban legends regarding Sesame Street". There is of course coverage of individual rumours, but that belongs in other articles where appropriate. Like Bert and Ernie. --Mkativerata (talk) 10:30, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Of course mass media isn't going to report upon the verbatim title of this article. The article summarizes the urban legends and rumors about Sesame Street. You're advocating to delete this information from the public's view on Wikipeida, stating that it belongs elsewhere, without proposing a merge of the information. Northamerica1000^(talk) 12:10, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, this article gave me quite a laugh, I wasn't expecting that. While the general topic has been covered (here, for example) I'm thinking that a selective Merge to the parent article would be the best idea, since the sourcing is a bit thin. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:34, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~Strong Delete Mkativerata gets it spot on here, coverage of individual rumors belongs in other articles not in this one list. Mt king ^(edits) 02:43, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - If the information in this article is removed from Wikipeida, it can't be merged. If the information "belongs" elsewhere, then why delete this data without at least considering merging it? Perhaps you should consider the idea of merging the content, per WP:PRESERVE, rather than it being entirely removed. Northamerica1000^(talk) 11:51, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for giving cause to re-read this discussion, and it has occurred to me as rumors are by definition "unverified account or explanation of events", why on earth is an Encyclopedia covering them, this makes us look like a supermarket trash mag. Could this article be a way of circumventing WP:RS, WP:V and other policies and guidelines by dressing up rumors as fact ? . Mt king ^(edits) 02:43, 14 January 2012 (UTC) 12:24, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

We cover things like this for many subjects because they get ample news attention, and are thus notable. Many people will hear the rumors and its best to set things straight here. And we are not a trash mag since we aren't spreading rumors, simply reporting the ones the news covers, and then showing the official response to counter them as ridiculous. Dream Focus 13:01, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If it is known that a rumour is untrue, then the best strategy is to afford it no square-footage whatsoever. Lest I start writing an article about how the moon is definitely not made of cheese. Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 13:18, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

LOL, someone beat you too it: The Moon is made of green cheese. Wow, we really do have articles about everything. Mark Arsten (talk) 16:21, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ha, believe it or not, I did check that before posting, and wondered how long it would take for someone to bring it up. Hilarious. Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 16:24, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that's the thing about Wikipedia, discussions eventually devolve into everyone bringing up obscure exceptions to common sense all the time :) Oh well, Mark Arsten (talk) 16:29, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Mark, this is exactly why I support a STRONG DELETE. My argument is one from common sense, that it simply makes no sense to waste space with this article when the content, when valid, is in other articles. I've never been able to make a cogent argument from common sense, though, although I suppose that I'm making it now. Christine (talk) 18:19, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You bring up an interesting point, during discussions on Wikipedia a great deal of emphasis is given on parsing the specific guidelines and rules. (I'm just as guilty of this as anyone else.) Simple saying "Delete: this is common sense" (or "Keep this is common sense") is really frowned upon. I know we need to keep WP:NOTAVOTE in mind, but maybe we should be more accepting at Afd (or other venues, I suppose) for people to simply say, "Only one option here seems like the sane thing to do"? Mark Arsten (talk) 18:40, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - If this information is not suitable to be contained on other articles (e.g. Bert and Ernie, Sesame Street) then it's probably not worth being on Wikipedia. If the info is contained elsewhere then this article is basically a collection of trivia. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 18:35, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete merge wouldn't be appropriate as I'm not sure this material is approrpiate for inclusion in Wikipedia per WP:IINFO and WP:TRIVIA. Having references is a necessary, but not sufficient, condition for inclusion of info, and there's not much I find here that merits being in the encyclopedia in any form. --Jayron32 04:04, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - in general, 'rumors about X' is a poor basis for an article (see e.g. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rumors about the September 11 attacks (2nd nomination)), since it just becomes a place to collect speculation and trivia. In this case, none of the rumors listed seem particularly notable in their own right; but in any case, any which are can be noted in other articles (like the Bert and Ernie ones in the Bert and Ernie article). I'm not convinced there's a need for this article at all. Robofish (talk) 13:29, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That was a totally different case. There is a page which covers all the sourced rumors for that already. 9/11 conspiracy theories This other page was apparently seen as useless, or just filled with unreferenced nonsense. Dream Focus 13:50, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If people are having trouble with the word "rumor" perhaps a different word could be used. Would calling it Misconceptions covered in the media related to Sesame Street make any difference? Dream Focus 13:50, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nope. Different name, same concept. Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 14:03, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that it does not offer anything that would be worthy of a separate article on its own.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 17:59, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. The subject (Sesame Street urban legends) has not in itself been addressed in depth by multiple citeable sources. This is in contrast to (e.g.) 9/11 urban legends/theories - a subject directly addressed by newspapers, books and films. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 18:26, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Articles are kept if they meet WP:GNG which this clearly does. Each item gets coverage. No sense making a separate article for each one of course, best to have them altogether. Most arguments against it seem to be WP:I don't like it. Dream Focus 18:55, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Uh, no. The argument against is that the article topic does not meet WP:GNG. Unlike 9/11 Conspiracy Theories, which taken as a topic is plainly notable, there is no evidence -- at least, none so far -- that the topic of "rumors and urban legends regarding Sesame Street" is notable. Mkat put it best. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 00:06, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Each of the items in this article (save possibly one) are already covered in other articles in Wikipedia. The Bert and Ernie points are discussed on the page for those characters (although the death of Ernie section could be beefed up in that article); the "Veggie Monster" thing is included in the Cookie Monster article; the HIV+ puppet is covered in Sesame Street international co-productions, and almost every word in the text of Takalani Sesame discusses the HIV+ puppet (not to mention three external links and the single reference). The only thing that doesn't seem to be covered elsewhere is the birth-control thing, which is a rather trivial subject, mentioned in a single page of a 226 page book which specifically focuses on Sesame Street. This appears to be an unneeded content fork. The related article Pop culture influenced by Sesame Street could use a lot of help and referencing (and some inbound links to de-orphan it) for those who want to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Sesame Street; perhaps some of the effort being expended here could be directed towards that article. Horologium (talk) 15:04, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I feel like while fairly silly, it does meet the notability standard. I could easily see myself looking for information on some of these here in the right situation.-- Alyas Grey : talk 23:05, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'd also like to point out that the odd distribution of keep v delete votes reeks of astroturfing or a movement originating from elsewhere to force the deletion of an "unpleasant" article. -- Alyas Grey : talk 23:07, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Actually, it's on top of ANI as the result of a related discussion, so more people are seeing it. MSJapan (talk) 23:14, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Much of this comes off as NOTNEWS silliness if nothing else. There are only three items in the whole article, and as noted by Horologium above, the major ones are covered elsewhere. I would personally expect something "regarding topic A" to actually be in the article "topic A". Frankly, for a show that's been on TV in so many places for so many years and yet has generated all of two rumors of any substance whatsoever to a limited grouping is pretty much non-notable as a separate item. MSJapan (talk) 23:14, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The article title and topic is WP:SYNTH, so it must be deleted. Unscintillating (talk) 03:56, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{Let's talk}_{about my edits?} 13:11, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dagmar Lahlum

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

Obscure Norwegian woman, whose only claim to fame is that she was briefly one of several mistresses of famed British spy Eddie Chapman. While her story is interesting, she has no notability apart from Chapman's, so this article really should be either deleted or merged with Eddie Chapman, which has a section on his love life where this belongs. ScottyBerg (talk) 22:23, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 22:41, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with the above that this article should be deleted or merged with Eddie Chapman.--Tzadkiel43 (talk) 22:51, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - a resistance and MI5 agent - and participant in the Eddie Chapman story. $Brookie :) { - he's in the building somewhere!} (Whisper...)$ 10:14, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

~~There's no question that she helped out Chapman, but I'm not seeing any notable achievements apart from that. Relationships do not confer notability.~~ ScottyBerg (talk) 15:29, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

<<User:ScottyBerg is currently blocked indefinitefly for being a sock puppet>> $Brookie :) { - he's in the building somewhere!} (Whisper...)$ 09:56, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep this article in Norway's largest newspaper published eight years post mortem clearly demonstrates her notability. Arsenikk ^(talk) 10:06, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. —Mentoz86 (talk) 03:11, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Arsenikk - passes WP:GNG. (And if the nominator is currently blocked indefinitely for a sock puppet, I don't see the point of this discussion) Mentoz86 (talk) 03:11, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Struck comments made by ScottyBerg, a sockpupet of a indefinitely banned user. Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{Let's talk}_{about my edits?} 13:11, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy Article already deleted. Article deleted under WP:A10 (non-admin closure) Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 23:17, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Crisis in the Strait of Hormuz

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

The Strait of Hormuz has not actually been closed. There is no "crisis". Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 21:52, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTNEWSPAPER. The U.S. and Iran growling at each other is not noteworthy (or unusual) ... until they start shooting. Clarityfiend (talk) 22:00, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A crisis does not require "shooting" - there is such thing as a diplomatic crisis. No Hormuz has not yet been closed yet, but Iran has declared that it will should threatened Western sanctions led by the US be imposed. Iran has undertaken controversial naval military exercises near Hormuz that have been deemed provocative by the United States. There have been reports that US military forces are mobilizing to proceed in activity in the Persian Gulf area in relation to the escalating crisis over Hormuz. This is a crisis in the sense of the Sudeten Crisis (I am not using the Suddeten crisis to make comparisons with Nazi Germany, but for comparison of the two crises involving threats of action) in that crisis, there was a threat of military action by Germany against Czechoslovakia and a corresponding threat of military action by Britain and France against Germany. As of yet there is no military action has yet happened but there is an open statement by Iran that it intends to blockade the Strait of Hormuz should the U.S. and the West press for sanctions on Iran, and the US has in turn stated that it will not tolerate Iran closing the Hormuz. It is a major diplomatic crisis that is being addressed in the UN Security Council - major permanent members of the Council have made public statements on the matter. NOTE: without Wikipedia's inclusion, there are over 200,000 search hits on Google for "crisis in the Strait of Hormuz".--R-41 (talk) 22:05, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as nom – calling this a crisis is like characterising the likelihood of India retaliating in kind to a Pakistani nuclear attack as the "Nuclear crisis in the Indian subcontinent". Nothing has actually happened; this isn't even an event. Just because x says they'll do y if a does b, this does not make a crisis. Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 22:15, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As I said, this is quickly evolving into a crisis, and there are over 200,000 hits (excluding Wikipedia) for "crisis in the Strait of Hormuz" - US, British, French, and surprisingly Russian naval forces have assembled in the Persian Gulf, Russia is supporting Western opposition to Iran's threat. China has responded to the crisis saying that it is urging calm over the issue of Hormuz and wants the Strait to remain open. Major governments have public statements and actions in response to Iran's threat to close Hormuz. The UK, USA, France Russia, and China are all taking an active role in this crisis, and all are permanent members of the United Nations Security Council. If you prefer to call it a "dispute" rather than a crisis, that may be acceptable, but it is a serious real event that is happening.--R-41 (talk) 22:32, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Seems like an Iranian gambit to test U.S. resolve following the Iraq withdrawal. But until shots are fired, at best this can be described as a diplomatic incident or sabre rattling. Regards, RJH (talk) 22:47, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have renamed the article "Strait of Hormuz dispute" in response to concerns that the term "crisis" is too strong. It is an international relations dispute between Iran and the US and other countries - Iran claims it has the right to close of the Hormuz, the US and other countries, such as Saudi Arabia and other Arab states claim Iran does not have the right to close the Hormuz. It is a significant issue that is being addressed by multiple major governments including Iran itself that has brought forth the issue of closing the Hormuz, the US, China, Russia, the UK, several Arab states and other major countries. Is the article acceptable with this new title?--R-41 (talk) 22:52, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As I've pointed out on my talk page, this isn't about use of the word "crisis" – the event itself is not discreetly notable. Also, the article Iran-United States relations already has a section on this event, and so I'm tagging this article under CSD:A10. Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 23:07, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 21:49, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nameless language

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

No evidence of notability, no independent references, looks like something made up one day. AndrewWTaylor (talk) 21:42, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 22:42, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:09, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This looks WP:MADEUP and Google searches confirm there are no sources except WP:SPS and online discussions, e.g., here, where someone observed, "This looks like brainfuck with like one or two extra instructions." Fails WP:GNG. Msnicki (talk) 18:57, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I couldn't find a reliable source to establish notability. Axl ¤ [Talk] 01:06, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Nameless, yes. Also make it "pageless". Will fit its programming paradigm. History2007 (talk) 14:57, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 21:48, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

MonsterMMORPG

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

browser based game, was speedily deleted, and recreated by creator. Creator has COI with the game (author/publisher).

Several sources listed, most are either self published (game website) or definate non reliable database listing of all games etc.

Two sources do provide somewhat in depth coverage

But I think that these do not meet the WP:RS theshhold.

Editor has been making a WP:POINT on original CSD admin's talk page here claiming that this game is being treated unfairly as compared to other browser based games in regards to notability and reliability. Gaijin42 (talk) 21:38, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. What about the gamespot source? COI editors are a pain, but I don't think this article qualifies for deletion. Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 21:55, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Did you actually read the gamespot source? Here is the entirety of the content "MonsterMMORPG is a massively multiplayer online role-playing game similar to Pokemon.". I think this qualifies under the "database" exception. Gaijin42 (talk) 22:09, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I did indeed. It also contains a video tutorial of how to play, which I think counts as coverage by a secondary source. But fair enough, I see your point. Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 22:22, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, the Gamespot reference is merely a directory entry stating that the game exists. The other references are the site itself or blogs. Fails WP:WEB and WP:V. NawlinWiki (talk) 22:07, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. These 3 following sources has editors : http://xin.07073.com/haiwai/539191.html , http://www.onrpg.com/MMO/MonsterMMORPG/review/MonsterMMORPG-Fight-to-the-Top , http://mmohuts.com/browser-games/monster-mmorpg yet all of the other sources are also published via their editors but their names are not listed. Non of the references are generated via users. Also when the game site content and nature of it considered, it is almost impossible for an indie game and browser mmorpg game to get so many high authority reference links. Browser mmorpg games are relatively low budged games for both developing and advertising. When advertising is massive you get so many good reference links but if you don't have extreme budged to spend on advertising, you don't have many chances to get good authority reference links. Following category listed games reference links are also proving my point : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Browser-based_multiplayer_online_games . I have checked that category games 1 by 1 and 90% of them has lesser reputable reference links than mine. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ShareToGain (talk • contribs) 23:05, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that it is difficult for an indie browser based game to get reliable sources is not wikipedia's fault. It means that it islikely that the topic in not a good subject for an article on wikipedia. We are not here to serve as google-juice for you. Regarding the other games - as I mentioned on your talk page, WP:OTHERSTUFF exists, but if you have individual articles which you believe do not merit inclusion, then feel free to nominate them for deletion, but beware making a WP:POINT. Gaijin42 (talk) 23:25, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Gaijin42 You are missing another point that i believe i have enough authority backlinks to be counted as notable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ShareToGain (talk • contribs) 23:27, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Don't forget to sign your comments. ::you could post the links you think are reliable sources with editors to the reliable sources noticeboard, and see if you can gather consensus that those sources are in fact reliable. If they were judged to be reliable, that would go a long way to helping your article survive. Gaijin42 (talk) 23:29, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closing admin User:ShareToGain is the creator of this article (who allegedly has a COI). --Carbon Rodney 08:49, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This allegation is based on comments made on NawlinWiki's talk page - "our game" etc. Gaijin42 (talk) 14:02, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note also that user has changed their name from ShareToGain to OnlineGamesExpert to avoid any confusion. Gaijin42 (talk) 00:18, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Changing to delete, per further evaluation of the gamespot source, and re-reading the article. Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 23:32, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~. Can you please tell me which websites do you say authoritative and which are not. The references i have are all submitted via editors and can not be submitted via any person. So i believe that all the references i have are should be counted as authoritative. ShareToGain (talk) 23:36, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You only get to vote once. As i said, if you want validation of if the sources are reliable or not, please post a question on the reliable sources noticeboard. It is my personal opinion that the sites you have linked to are more along the lines of blogs, rather than sites with a editorial staff, but I am not the final say in that (which is why you should go to the noticeboard) Gaijin42 (talk) 23:40, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Where is this noticeboard ? ShareToGain (talk) 23:42, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard google is your friend. Gaijin42 (talk) 23:50, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks :) ShareToGain (talk) 23:58, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Video games Wikiproject has a massive list of reliable (and unreliable) sources relating specifically to video games at WP:VG/RS - X201 (talk) 09:03, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) X201 (talk) 09:09, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I doubt that the given sources would meet the criteria required by WP:VG/RS - X201 (talk) 09:20, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per Nawlinwiki and X201. There doesn't appear to be any coverage from any third party, reliable sources. I don't feel the ones presented so far qualify as such. Sergecross73 msg me 16:51, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:08, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I doubt that there any sources. The ADfGirl184.44.131.140 (talk) 20:11, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note to closing Admin - Even though the IP agrees with my stance, I feel obligated to mention that this is an IP with a history of bad faith !votes at AFD, who was, right after that comment, was blocked for disruptive editing, only to then be range-blocked right after that, for their long history of disruptive editing from different IPs. (See here.) Sergecross73 msg me 13:34, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 21:50, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Computational health informatics

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

No evidence at all that this is a distinct branch of health informatics or computer science; the existence of one university lab by that name is just a name for a working group, not evidence of notability. The abstracts of the papers at the NSF workshop asserted to contain references to the field do not even use the term. DGG ( talk ) 21:34, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:00, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:00, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per DGG and the comment on the talk page by the author admitting this is not yet a well-established term or field. —Ruud 04:12, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - even the author essentially admits that the article is original research, but I suspect it's really bollucks. Bearian (talk) 22:40, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Rcsprinter (Gimme a message) 19:48, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yash Chopra's Untitled project

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

Is it not too early to create this page? Name of the movie has also not been announced; should the article be kept? If yes then under what name "anonymous"? AKS (talk) 21:12, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Principal photography has begun, according to the sources, so it passes WP:NFF. Chopra just has not settled on a title; the page will be moved when he does. BollyJeff || talk 21:19, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep According to WP:NFF, the film has entered principal photography, therefore it doesn't qualify under WP:Crystal, that said, I have two examples for you:

Talaash (2012 film) was named Reema Kagti's Untitled Project at first and remained that way for months till it was named by the filmmakers. THIS

and yes, it isn't too early, not even a singe shot has been filmed in Dhoom 3: Back in Action, as a matter of fact, shooting wont bigin till December 2012, but a page of the film remains.--Meryam90 (talk) 21:24, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:46, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:46, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Significant coverage in Indian news sources confers to topic notability: [2], [3], [4]. Northamerica1000^(talk) 13:06, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep : Just noticed some IP user changing names to Jai, so I'll try and do some research and find out. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 09:13, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's a rumor according to this site: [5], but that's not a reliable source and nothing has been confirmed by the filmmakers. --Meryam90 (talk) 10:11, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. There is a consensus, that the subject of the article meest WP:ENT#1. (non-admin closure) Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{Let's talk}_{about my edits?} 13:03, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Carlon Jeffery

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

Relisting per Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2012 January 1. I abstain. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 21:08, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I'll stick my neck out and say 'delete', because Jeffery does not meet WP:NACTOR, his significant role is only in ANT Farm, while WP:NACTOR requires significant appearances in multiple series. Sionk (talk) 01:25, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Meets WP:ENT #1 "Has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows ...". Assume notable film or TV Show is shown by having a wiki article. Multiple meaning more than one. Significant is a judgment call - Main role in A.N.T. Farm is one, presumption is that a recurring role in a major TV series is significant so recurring role in Heroes is at least the second. Body of work adds support. Also has coverage from two reliable third party sources unaffiliated with the subject so meets basics of WP:N. Geraldo Perez (talk) 01:55, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:59, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per Geraldo Perez's argrument. We have shared the same sentiments since the beginning of the deletion review process. Quasy Boy 16:59, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep G.Perez's arguments are more than convincing. Passes WP:ENT. Cavarrone (talk) 07:34, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Geraldo Perez's reasoning. "Significant" is indeed subjective, and I tend to agree that the recurring Heroes role and the regular role in A.N.T. Farm is just enough to meet WP:ENT #1. Gongshow ^Talk 07:56, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 21:51, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Elecchicks

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

I declined this CSD, as some notability is asserted in the article. However, I do not believe that the company is notable enough for inclusion, so have nominated it for deletion. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 21:00, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not notable. Searching on Google News and Google Books returns nothing. Searching on Google web search returns no reliable sources. Article is clearly promotional and was previously speedy deleted. CSD:G11 still applies. Sparthorse (talk) 21:10, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:58, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, and I too would have speedily deleted this as spam, and as making no real claim of minimal significance. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 15:36, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I found this mention but this is far from the coverage needed to merit inclusion. -- Whpq (talk) 16:14, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{Let's talk}_{about my edits?} 13:01, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

MV Spiegelgracht

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

One-sentence stub about a non-notable ship. bobrayner (talk) 20:48, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, this article should be Deleted. This ship is a non-notable s-type cargo vessel.--Tzadkiel43 (talk) 23:08, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:58, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - a quick Googling has this pop up as the very second result (the first being the article in question here). This was also found, as was a cite (paywalled, apparently) from Jane's Merchant Ships. I believe sufficent information is available to establish notability. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:55, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Following expansion. Disappointing to see that again an assumption of presumed 'non-notability' was made, and that no attempt was made to 1) look for sources and 2) use those sources to expand beyond a one sentence stub. If anyone has access to Jane's, that would be a further source to add. Benea (talk) 04:48, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – I don't know. Spliethoff (on which we don't have an article; the Dutch and Finnish Wikipedia's do have one: Spliethoff Group (in Dutch); Spliethoff (in Finnish)) operates a fleet of some 55 ships. Spiegelgracht is only one of 80 freighters used by Sevenstar (a company owned by Spliethoff) to transport pleasure yachts on deck. Spiegelgracht is one of 11 largely identical "S-type" ships built in 2000–2004 (see http://www.spliethoff.com/Fleets/S-type.aspx?objectname=FleetShow&objectId=6), all owned and operated by Spliethoff. I don't think we should have separate articles on each. Is there some argument why Spiegelgracht should be singled out to give it the full article treatment? --Lambiam 10:23, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Is there any reason why all eleven ships shouldn't have a full article. Mjroots (talk) 11:00, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:SHIPS long-standing convention that, subject to meeting GNG, all ships over 100'/100 tons are capable of sustaining their own articles. The article needs a bit of improvement (structure, descripiton, history) but needing improvement is never a reason to delete. Mjroots (talk) 11:00, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Just needs expansion and more work.--Wpwatchdog (talk) 15:21, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per GNG. Nice work Benea & MJ.Haus^Talk 03:41, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 21:51, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Looksky

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

I found no significant coverage covering this computer worm. Fails WP:N. SL93 (talk) 20:42, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:57, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I'm pretty convinced that computer viruses are notable either for technical reasons or for the extraordinary success. Thus I would conclude that the reliable sources listed in the article pretty evidently prove the lack of notability. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 22:54, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - There is this column which appears to be one where newspaper readers write in with their computing questions. Aside from this, I can find not other coverage. -- Whpq (talk) 16:18, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 21:52, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Bcz.com

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

declined speedy, although I think it does meet a7 and g11. No google news hits, no google hits that arent PR/interlink. No claims to awards, significance, etc. Gaijin42 (talk) 20:39, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

delete - I removed the a7 tag since WP:NPP warns against overuse of A7 for not being notable (in your opinion): an article does not have to prove that its subject is notable. Support for notability is an article about the company being among a small group of prize-winning promising startup companies. However, with only one line of text being spent on bcz.com, that is not enough. Han-Kwang (t) 23:33, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:56, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:56, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Another social business network platform that allows businesses to connect, publish information realtime, stay informed with latest updates and find everything business related by streamlining online content publishing to worldwide audience (Oh, Ghod!) advertising on Wikipedia. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 15:37, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 21:52, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Memory Maps Company Ltd

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

Company not notable. No assertion of notability. No coverage in reliable sources that I could see. Philafrenzy (talk) 20:23, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This would qualify for speedy deletion, wouldn't it? Sionk (talk) 01:27, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:55, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, and I'd say it qualifies for speedy deletion. There is a longer version in history, but the longer version was simply more unreferenced vaporing about the business model, and didn't establish minimal significance any more than this substub does. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 15:42, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Virtuous circle and vicious circle. Actually, "redirect somewhere", but we have to pick one possibility to be able to close this. Can be editorially changed as desired, of course. Sandstein 18:24, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Spiral causality

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

I don't think this is a commonly used term exclusive to neuroscience. I tried finding excerpts on Google but came up empty. Judging by the quote, I don't even think the author of the book cited intended this to be used as a technical term. I think it could be rewritten in a wholly different (broader) context but as it exists right now it's just a single quote. Bored On The Holidays (talk) 18:36, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:58, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with causal loop diagram. The topic is about a visual model of causality when there is feedback and so the articles belong together. Warden (talk) 21:20, 24 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) 15:17, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect somewhere. Google book search and Google scholar search both show that the term is used in many fields, primarily in the social sciences, and also that it is considered synonymous with the more common term "circular causality". I saw no indication that the specific use by Dehaene enjoys any level of notability, so there is no need or even reason to merge. A problem I have with taking Causal loop diagram as the redirect target is that the latter article article is really about this type of diagram, and not generally about a loop of factors in which each reinforces the next. Curiously, Causal loop redirects to Predestination paradox, an entirely different topic. Perhaps redirect to Virtuous circle and vicious circle with judicious See also's thrown in? --Lambiam 20:13, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 20:21, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect somewhere. History2007 (talk) 15:17, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Goodvac (talk) 07:48, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Azzam

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

This was a redirect page. The problem is that there are many Azzams, and its original target is probably not even the most popular one. A disambiguation page might be a good idea, but I think that no page at all is a better idea. Jsolinsky (talk) 20:18, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I'm not sure why the nom thinks a disambiguation page is not as good an idea as deletion. We have several people called Azzam, hence a disambiguation page is worth having. Quasi human | Talk 22:53, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Because it is a common name. We would have to reference a great many Wikipedia articles (and maintain this list as new Azzams get pages). Also because if we have an Azzam page, people who enter Azzam in the search bar and hit return go to the Azzam page, and do not get a list of search results. I think that the list of search results will much more often be the preferred outcome. Jsolinsky (talk) 23:06, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not going to !vote either way at the moment, just to note that I have converted it into a disambiguation page to save it from speedy deletion. Blanking the redirect and bringing here blank wasn't the best idea, in my opinion, you should have taken it to WP:RfD as a redirect, but its here now, so we might as well discuss it here. Quasi human | Talk 23:17, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as disambiguation page. If it causes problems later through overloading, it can be dealt with again then. Peridon (talk) 23:20, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Peridon. I have populated the disambiguation page, there may be some more entries I haven't found yet, but even so, it is quite modest in numbers, so I don't think overloading is or will be a problem in the near future. Quasi human | Talk 23:38, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
OK since somebody has stepped forward to maintain the page, I withdraw my request Jsolinsky (talk) 23:44, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 21:53, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nicholas Wiedman

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

Written solely by the subject MorganKevinJ^(talk) 19:43, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:54, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Bombardment notwithstanding, fails WP:MUSICBIO. Location (talk) 07:38, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I can find no reliable sources that demonstrate the notability of the subject. Fails WP:MUSIC, with a healthy dose of WP:COI for good measure. --sparkl_!sm ^hey! 15:08, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No significant coverage in reliable sources. The article is part genealogy, and part resume. -- Whpq (talk) 16:41, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 21:54, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Peg in the bottle

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

I cannot find the requisite rs coverage, though others are welcome to try. Zero gnews hits. Zero gbooks hits. Zero refs. Tagged for notability and lack of refs for over 4 years. Created by an SPA. Epeefleche (talk) 19:26, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I only found 2 Wikipedia reprints. SL93 (talk) 01:36, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:52, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I can find no coverage in reliable sources. Gongshow ^Talk 02:39, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - mentioned in this self-published bio [6] but no coverage in reliable sources. -- Whpq (talk) 16:58, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. SNOW delete--I do not see any other possible result. DGG ( talk ) 05:09, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Jean-Paul Floru

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

Unreferenced BLP that has previously been nominated for deletion @ Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jean-Paul Floru and was deleted. Previous rationale, which is the same as this one's rationale, is non-notable, presumbly because he fails POLITICIAN because he is only a local councillor. Also alleged that J.P.F. may have edited the article himself. Since it had already been AfDed and PRODded before, it shouldn't be PRODded, so I've AfDed it again instead. Purpleback pack 89≈≈≈≈ 18:36, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Just being a local councilor is not sufficient notability for an article, as per WP:POLITICIAN, and I cant find any other reasons why he is notable -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:42, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per BSZ, per nom, and also since it is just puffery and COI. Reaper Eternal (talk) 18:45, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No evidence of notability, per WP:POLITICIAN. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:47, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Not noteworthy and potentially biased. Calabe 1992 18:47, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. That his position as Westminster councillor is not enough to guarantee notability was also the conclusion of the previous AfD, and nothing has changed. Drmies (talk) 18:48, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete little coverage - appears to fail notability under WP:POLITICIAN. Nwlaw63 (talk) 19:54, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:POLITICIAN and per previous AFD. ukexpat (talk) 21:04, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Seven deletes already...you want SNOW with that? Purpleback pack 89≈≈≈≈ 02:54, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 22:42, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:48, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Max Semenik (talk) 18:58, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Apriso

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

This was deleted through AfD just over a year ago for failing WP:CORP. From what I can tell nothing has changed - the references provided are either primary sources from the company, or passing mentions in articles about other companies - no significant coverage in other words. SmartSE (talk) 17:49, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:45, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:45, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and salt. That's quite a collection of press releases from the PR noise machine you got there. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 15:44, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt still not notable. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 21:54, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete but don't salt. It got recreated once 8 months after it was first deleted. That is not a persistent vandalism issue that needs to be solved with salt. We have WP:CSD#G4 for reposts. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 11:09, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete and salt. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 21:55, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Abou Said Raji

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

BLP Prod removed by the creator without references. Upon checking the creator's talk page, I noted that the article has been created multiple times under multiple title variants, and all previous incarnations have been deleted either under BLP-Prod (sometimes prematurely) or under speedy A7. I could restore the BLP-Prod on this incarnation, but I feel if I do that the page will just pop up again. Delete, salt if required. Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 17:49, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:44, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:44, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 02:00, 10 January 2012 (UTC) [reply]
Delete. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. 8 hits, I think that says it all really. Mattythewhite (talk) 02:03, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence that this article meets any of our notability guidelines. Jogurney (talk) 16:18, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 16:24, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Argyle 4 Life^talk 14:38, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 11:14, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Formula One (programming language)

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

Lacks reliable independent secondary sources to establish notability as required by WP:GNG. I looked through the Google results, including Google books and Google scholar, and found nothing. Msnicki (talk) 17:31, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Sad that this has been around since 1992 and currently does not have any Notability. Phearson (talk) 18:08, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Msnicki (talk) 19:19, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Msnicki (talk) 19:19, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Redirect to Constraint logic programming because the language's website says the syntax is based on Trilogy, and Trilogy is mentioned in an article in BYTE called "Constraint logic programming" (Feb 1995). I can't find any evidence of notability for F1, even on its own website. --Northernhenge (talk) 20:03, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Per WP:R#PLA we should not redirect to an article unless the redirected term is mentioned on the target article in a prominent way. That is not the case now, and merging the content to there may give this WP:UNDUE weight – no other constraint logic PLs are mentioned there. In spite of the positive review in BYTE we also have no article on Trilogy (I haven't read the BYTE review, but I assume this is about the language and system developed by Paul J. Voda). --Lambiam 22:38, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, I should have re-read WP:R#PLA. Changed to delete. --Northernhenge (talk) 09:59, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- It's a long time since I wrote any Trilogy, but this doesn't look much like its syntax. F1 looks like a far more practical approach to a similar problem. So we shouldn't redirect to Trilogy.

However that's not what was suggested - a merge to Constraint logic programming seems entirely appropriate. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:33, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

~~Merge~~(see below) (although I'd prefer to keep it) No, I can't source it immediately. Like msnicki's other AfD for Qi (programming language), these are articles that illustrate why language designers need to choose googlewhacks for their names, if they're to survive on WP. This is a good article and is illustrative of the general field of Constraint logic programming. Accordingly if we aren't going to keep it for reasons of demonstrated notability, we should at least improve the encyclopedia by merging this useful topic explanation into our general article. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:33, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I can agree with that provided that you commit to (1) ensuring that the merge actually happens, while (2) including similar attention to other multi-paradigm languages that combine CP and LP, such as Alma-0, ECLiPSe, B-Prolog, CHIP, CLP(R), Oz, and SWI-Prolog (and in fact, to a certain extent, most current Prolog systems), so as to avoid giving undue weight to one, perhaps undeservedly, not very notable language. --Lambiam 13:42, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

snow keep Tagged for AfD in under a day of creation - this simply fails WP:BITE. I'm sure that msnicki will be happy to watch the development of this brand new article, that's if we haven't driven off yet another new wiki editor. Andy Dingley (talk) 13:56, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Neither WP:SNOW nor WP:BITE seems to support you. With 3 of us !voting to delete and only you in favor of keep, it fails WP:SNOW. And WP:BITE says nothing about keeping new articles just because they were written by new editors, though I concede there's some discussion of this at New page patrol, but this is mostly in the context of speedy deletions, especially of pages lacking context or content. This is an AfD. It doesn't matter who wrote the article or why they did it. Content doesn't matter because that can always be fixed. All that matters here is whether the topic notable. If the sources exist, even if they're not yet cited, it's notable and we keep it. In this case, I don't think the sources exist. But you could prove me wrong with a citation and if you do, I will change my position, as I do routinely when new information is presented. Msnicki (talk) 17:54, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Bite, or no bite, it is a very obscure language probably with 17 users worldwide. Not worth a page. History2007 (talk) 14:51, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 22:02, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Revolutions of 2010–2012

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

I don't know where to begin: the title is terribly obscure, the page makes claims about OWS being a child of the Arab Spring which constitutes original research, and it seems like the see also section is more-or-less haphazard. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 17:15, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It looks to me to be a unlikely disambiguation page for the recent uprisings. Total disagreement that those revolutions were parent to the occupy movement. I would consider deletion on the grounds of Original Research and for the lack of Reliable Sources. Phearson (talk) 17:24, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all of the above, and for a total misunderstanding of what a dab page is supposed to be. Clarityfiend (talk) 22:03, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:42, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:43, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - While I've read the opinion expressed that the Occupy [YOUR TOWN HERE] movement was a manifestation of the same phenomenon as the so-called "Arab Spring," I don't thing this page with its obscure and unsearchable title advances the encyclopedia. It strikes me as a bit POV. There may come a day, after the books and journal articles are published, when the Arab Spring and OWS are linked as part of some coherent and commonly-named phenomenon. That would be a crystal ball prediction. This seems a delete — for now. Carrite (talk) 02:20, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
NOTE The article doesn't have a link to the current discussion. __meco (talk) 09:18, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The link has been fixed.--JayJasper (talk) 18:52, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete per nom. & others. Original research, utterly unencyclopedic.--JayJasper (talk) 18:57, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Nonsense and Crystal Bol. And Occupy is not a revolution but a hype. Night of the Big Wind _talk 16:48, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not hype. rather, movement. Phearson (talk) 21:58, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or redirect to Arab Spring --Article editor (talk) 19:58, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 22:04, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

LawyerLocator.com

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

No assertion of notability, and notability not demonstrated. There are a lot of sources listed, but a closer look indicates that they don't amount to substantial coverage in reliable, independent sources. Many sources don't even mention LawyerLocator.com. It almost seems like a coatrack, in that the entry and the sources are about LawyerLocator.com's parent company, LexisNexis Martindale-Hubbell, which of course already has its own Wikipedia page. As of the posting of this AFD, there are 20 sources, but consider this:

Source 1, Law.com, is a passing mention that Mac users can't use LawyerLocator.com, not substantial coverage
Sources 2, 3 and 4 (NYT, WSJ, WSJ blog) do not mention LawyerLocator.com, ony the parent company
Source 5, factoidz.com, is promotional - it is a listing that offers a coupon for LawyerLocator.com
Sources 6-11 do not mention LawyerLocator.com
Source 12 includes LawyerLocator.com in a list of legal directories, but there's no actual coverage
Sources 13 & 14 don't mention LawyerLocator.com
Source 15 mentions the "Martindale-Hubbell Lawyer Locator Web site", but gives a different url for it, not LawyerLocator.com
Source 16 is another passing mention in a directory
Sources 17-20 don't mention LawyerLocator.com, and are primary sources

I strongly suspect this article was started for promotional reasons, and the history suggests that it's being edited by a PR team. Notability just hasn't been demonstrated here. Dawn Bard (talk) 16:43, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Concur with nominators findings. Wikipedia is not a place to promote a website. Phearson (talk) 17:29, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to LexisNexis Martindale-Hubbell. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 17:56, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:41, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - concur with notability concerns, promo concerns of nominator. --Nat Gertler (talk) 04:19, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was withdrawn by nominator see comment below. Non admin closure. Safiel (talk) 19:46, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speed typing contest

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

The article, as written, is about a particular Malaysian speed typing contest, not about speed typing contests in general. The particular speed typing contest described appears to fail WP:GNG. The only reference given that qualifies as a reliable source actually describes a NORWEGIAN speed typing contest. The other sources give do not qualify as reliable sources. The article needs to be fundamentally rewritten to describe speed typing contests in general, not this specific non notable contest. As it stands right now, Delete for failure to meet WP:GNG. Safiel (talk) 16:13, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep - Very fast nomination minutes after I declined the prod and began to rewrite the article from a topic-centric point of view. I'm still working on the article. Several references have been added, and this topic easily passes WP:GNG. The policies WP:FIXTHEPROBLEM, WP:PRESERVE and WP:ATD clearly supersede outright deletion in this case. Northamerica1000^(talk) 16:27, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep - Speed typing contests have been around since the 1880s. There are hundreds of books available that talk about this. WP:N out the wazoo. The current article seems to be centered on one Malaysian contest and will need to be expanded, but there's no reason to delete.--Stvfetterly (talk) 17:10, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral This one's a bit messy, it did start life as something different to what it is now being envisioned by both participants above, and still did when it was progressed from a PROD to an AFD discussion. That said this is a good example of why setting things like AFDs in motion without prior discussion can cause a lot of extra work. Instead of cleanly debating whether the original article - which was specifically about the new Malaysian speed typing competition - should stay, we're now stuck between talking about that subject and speed typing contests in general, while on a timer. Which are we talking about here? Speed typing in general does seem perfectly notable, but is this the best way of covering it? The big 1888 Cincinnati speed typing contest which would presumably form the basis of a general article is already covered in Touch Typing (under the first section, history). Someone another 17:53, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Withdrawing For the time being, I will withdraw this nomination, reserving the full right to renominate if the article has not been sufficiently altered. Safiel (talk) 19:46, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{Let's talk}_{about my edits?} 12:45, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

KotoriCon

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

Nonnotable local anime convention, covered only in local newspapers. NawlinWiki (talk) 16:04, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - Local newspapers are still news organizations (reliable sources) and are sufficient to establish notability. If this is disagreed with, then the content should be merged with the Gloucester County College article, not deleted; I created the article so as to split said content out from the GCC article, which is getting a bit long. Allens (talk) 16:17, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Incidentally, a search on "KotoriCon" on Google gives 40,500 webpages. I rather doubt that most, say, communes in France listed on Wikipedia have that many references - at least some of which are likely to quality as additional reliable sources. Allens (talk) 16:22, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, what is the protocol for putting in links to articles in Chinese by someone who doesn't understand the language except via Google Translate - see [7]? Thanks... This marks a third newspaper reporting on it, BTW. Allens (talk) 16:58, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. A quick search threw up loads of reliable sources. Local events can be notable. Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 18:13, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Quite. In the interests of full disclosure, I have notified people at WikiProject New Jersey about it, BTW, given the number of local articles that would be deleted using that criterion - I suspect the bot for AfD only picks something up if it's listed as under deletion after it's up as a WikiProject New Jersey article; I apologize if I am incorrect on this. Allens (talk) 18:17, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge -- multiple reliable sources establish notability. Unsure if there is enough material for a separate article however. --ChrisRuvolo (t) 18:55, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- A look at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Anime_and_manga/Conventions and its listing of material to go into an article on a convention seems to indicate that there's more that could go in there - examples of activities, the mascot, etc. Admittedly, I'm biased on this, since I tend to think that sticking in that much material into the main GCC article would be a bit much, especially considering that the style guide for College/University articles says that there's more that should go into the GCC article... Allens (talk) 19:19, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:39, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:39, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - WP:GNG doesn't forbid local news sources that are reliable from being used. Topic passes the General notability guideline. Northamerica1000^(talk) 17:16, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep After searching this, loads of hits came up on Google, most of which mentioned GCC without even having to click the link. If it's mentioned in third party publications (it appears to), then it is worth keeping, instead of adding more to the GCC page, which is getting a bit too long, as mentioned above, and this can cause the reader to become crazy. Tinton5 (talk) 00:15, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Newton family. (non-admin closure) Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{Let's talk}_{about my edits?} 12:42, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hannah Ayscough

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

simply a mother of a notable person, we dont have articles for mothers of mathematicians, mothers of mass murderers, or uncles of uxoricides Crusoe8181 (talk) 09:44, 9 January 2012 (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/2012 January 9. Snotbot t • c » 15:12, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge any relevant content to Newton family, notability is not inherited, but family members of very high-profile people can be covered in an article about their family. This is the case for Einstein family, where stand-alone articles about several members of Einstein's family have been merged. Quasi human | Talk 15:41, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:37, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to Newton family as per Quasihuman. Does not warrant a stand-alone article due to lack of individual notability. Location (talk) 21:28, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 05:36, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Mere Chuninda Geet

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

Unreferenced article about a book of poetry. No indication that this book is notable and specifically no evidence it meets WP:NBOOK. Google searching throws up a few mentions, but no obvious reliable sources. This is one of a set of articles by the same author that suffer from the same problems - they are evidently about the works of the author's grandfather and are here to help the author write an article about his grandfather. Sparthorse (talk) 14:41, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no author name in article, and google's giving me nothing when I search. WP:CSD#A1 ? Bazj (talk) 15:05, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for the sumple reason of WP:42 Funnyfarmofdoom _{(talk to me)} 18:58, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:34, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:35, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 14:12, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Outside Series

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

Improperly restored PROD, but concern still stands. "No asserted nobility, fails WP:NBOOK" Funnyfarmofdoom _{(talk to me)} 14:35, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 16:41, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This doesn't pass WP:NBOOK. There are no reviews by reliable sources, the only things that come up are links to purchase sites and the occasional post by non-notable book blogs.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 18:10, 9 January 2012 (UTC)tokyogirl79[reply]

Siiggghhh you guys are right. I feel foolish. I really loved her books, which I found randomly, so I decided to make sure her and her books had a page. But didn't realize that her 'Publishing Companies" are variations of self-titled type companies. I shall delete the pages. Goodfellow408 (talk) 06:00, 10 January 2012 (UTC) Is there a way I can delete the pages myself, since I'm the original author, or do we still have to complete the nomination/deletion process?Goodfellow408 (talk) 06:01, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Goodfellow, never feel foolish about contributing. Just because this didn't pan out didn't mean that you did anything bad. You made an article in good faith and it just didn't get the necessary stuff needed to keep it, but that's nothing you should feel bad about. You learned from it and next time you'll do better. It's how all of us on Wikipedia learn. I can guarantee that just about every one of us has made an article or an edit that didn't pass some Wikipedia guideline or another.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 18:03, 16 January 2012 (UTC)tokyogirl79[reply]

Reply - Since you are the original author, and only editor doing content edits, you can add {{db-author}} to the top of the article indicating that yo wish the article to be deleted. -- Whpq (talk) 17:13, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Der yck C. 22:03, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Aron (album)

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

Aron Erlichman (aka Deuce) is known as a member of Hollywood Undead; he is not considered to have independent notability, per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aron "Deuce" Erlichman. His three solo recordings are therefore not notable, all the more so because Aron (album) was not released, The Call Me Big Deuce EP is a self-released mixtape, and The Two Thousand Eight EP was only temporarily released via itunes and per WP:NALBUMS "Unreleased material (including demos, mixtapes, bootlegs, promo-only recordings) is only notable if it has significant independent coverage in reliable sources" and there appears to be none. As the (lack of) notability of the independent artist has already been tested at AfD then speedy deletion (A9) may apply; the articles were tagged by me as such but this was contested on the grounds that being a member of a notable band is sufficient indication of notability to require further discussion; in retrospect I tend to agree.

In addition to Aron (album) I am also nominating

RichardOSmith (talk) 12:08, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 15:02, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The artist of these albums has an article, see: Deuce (singer). Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{Let's talk}_{about my edits?} 12:23, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{Let's talk}_{about my edits?} 12:24, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete - Even if the artist's notability were beyond question, unreleased albums with no claim to notability outside the performing artist obviously fail WP:NALBUMS.--Martin IIIa (talk) 02:06, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per others. Each album must itself be notable per cites directly about it in order to merit a page...no automatic notability based on the artist even if he were highly notable. DMacks (talk) 05:04, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete "[N]otability is not inherited" (WP:NALBUMS), and these albums lack coverage in WP:RS that independently establish their own WP:Notability. Fail WP:GNG, fail WP:NALBUMS. Yappy2bhere (talk) 20:03, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. -- Ed (Edgar181) 20:33, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Acheson process

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

It looks like a repeat of Graphite Invention of synthetic graphite Zhounsbhs (talk) 10:25, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 15:03, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:10, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Stub has the potential to be expanded to give fuller details of the process. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:32, 2 January 2012 (UTC).[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{Let's talk}_{about my edits?} 12:16, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Xxanthippe, a google book search for "Acheson process" returns 3,500 results. There is enough scope for this stub to be expanded well beyond the content of Graphite, we don't delete articles for problems which can be fixed by editing. Quasi human | Talk 12:45, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have expanded the article a little, and added another ref. Quasi human | Talk 13:36, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the above. Meets WP:GNG and merge to Graphite isn't really warranted due to the expansion of the article. Location (talk) 05:11, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 00:35, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Microgen Aptitude

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

No evidence of notability. The only fact that is sourced is that a company has chosen to use this software. JamesBWatson (talk) 11:36, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not all software needs to be documented on Wikipedia. Looking at the edit log, this is clearly advertising. Much of the POV text has been removed, which has improved the article substantially. But it remains that this is the remnants of an article that was clearly an ad posing as a Wikipedia article. The two major editors User:Rosschap and User:Tma uk have only made edits on this article, uploaded a microgen logo image and made links on other articles to this article. And both have been warned regarding the removal of speedy deletion tags for this page. Looking at the article in its current state, it is a stub at best and provides almost no information on the software. I think the only question regarding this article is whether it should be deleted as a result of this AfD or speedily deleted under G11.--Carbon Rodney 12:38, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No indication of notability. Created and edited by User:Rosschap and User:Tma uk who as the above comment states are both SPA's. User:Rosschap also created the Microgen page which was speedy deleted as Spam. This page was nominated for Speedy deletion but the tag was removed by User:Tma uk so clearly working together on this. Vrenator ^talk 12:58, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:58, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete, unambiguous advertising and patent nonsense. Another software package designed to help development teams design, implement and control enterprise applications advertising on Wikipedia. That product description is deliberately meaningless and evasive as well. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 15:25, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was withdrawn. Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 09:13, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

PaltalkScene

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

No indications of notability. PROD declined with edit summary: "Objecting to deletion. Please define 'non notable software'. Paltalk is both a service an software to access the service. It generally has 80k or so online users at a time." There is a lot of commercial promotion coverage on the net and I only found some news and reviews all coming from PC World's Ian Harac. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 11:25, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 11:25, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not all software needs to be documented on Wikipedia. I think the patent section is sufficiently notable but this should be under the company's page if at all. ~~Deleting the deletion template was bad form, but it was from an IP so they probably didn't know what they were doing.~~ Looking at the log, this page looks to be a target for vandalism and I am confused why Paltalk redirects to PaltalkScene, when there is only one fleeting mention of PaltalkScene in the article. All in all, this page reads more like advertising that an article. --Carbon Rodney 12:10, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I would also note, that the patent side has some news coverage, as the company tried hard to promote itself suing everybody it ever heard of. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 13:08, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Strikeout: My mistake, they deleted the prod not the afd tag.--Carbon Rodney 07:02, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Per these books - [8], [9], [10], [11], [12], Newsweek - [13], and PC Magazine. SL93 (talk) 02:33, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Refs 1-5: focus is far away from instant messaging. These prove that PalTalk exists and is used, but that is true for every IM client out there, not a good reason for inclusion. Ref 6 (for what I can get from the snippet) disusses the Paltalk as a commercial entity with only trivial mention of software. Ref 7 — they have such article on nearly every IM client. See their links at the bottom for a threshold of coverage. There is a real problem with IMs: every general public IM client has a huge amount of coverage, as people write on how they use it. Given that instant messaging is a highly used service, we have to choose to either demand more for establishing IM software's notability or include just everything. I think we should require some sources that would be strictly focused on IM. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 08:10, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - I just looked through PC Magazine directory of videoconferencing software reviews (see a link above the review). Even the way they organize it shows their attempt at building an indiscriminate collection of software with each item reviewed. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 09:39, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - PC Magazine is a reliable source. SL93 (talk) 13:26, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      - It is indeed reliable, but the fact that it builds indiscriminate collection of videoconferencing software reviews doesn't allow us to use it for the purpose of determining notability. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 13:29, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        Indiscriminate collection? That's nonsense. In software AfDs, barely of them have coverage with this website. And if they do, there is usually more coverage available like in this case as I proved down below. SL93 (talk) 23:14, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:N requires 'significant coverage'. Only the first book and PC Magazine mention Paltalk by more than its name. The PC Magazine review has been posted by four Facebook users and one twitter account. And, I'm not surprised the original author left two those sources out as neither covers Paltalk in nearly as positive light as its Wikipedia article does.--Carbon Rodney 09:13, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - I disagree that it isn't significant coverage. I also don't see how the sources only refer to it as just its name. So you're saying that each source only says "Paltalk" in relation to it? SL93 (talk) 13:26, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - Hmm... let me try to provide clearer reasoning for why I think 5 of those 7 aren't significant coverage. For example, the second book you found in that search (Women Warriors for Allah) is not about Paltalk and it only mentions the word 'Paltalk' three times on one page: when discussing how Um Yussef communicated with other Muslim women using the software. WP:N says "Significant coverage means that sources address the subject directly in detail" so the PC Magazine review not only provides significant coverage by covering Paltalk in detail but it is also the subject of the PC Magazine article. Women Warriors for Allah is a 300-page book about the difficulties Muslim women in the Netherlands that only provides a trivial mention of Paltalk and is therefore not significant coverage. Similarly, the PC Magazine article isn't significant coverage of David Duchovny, despite mentioning his name in passing as it doesn't provide a detailed description of him.--Carbon Rodney 15:43, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I removed the original deletion notice because of this phrase in it, which I followed: "You may remove this message if you improve the article or otherwise object to deletion for any reason." I objected, removed the message as per the directive and gave a reason. If that message means something else it should have said so. If you remove Paltalk you should remove Yahoo Messenger and every other chat room program from wiki, including a lot of software titles. Currently Paltalk is perhaps the best chat room service around. Yahoo used to be good but years ago became overrun with bots. I don't know that media coverage should be a measure of notability as media is poor in covering the internet, and especially poor in covering chat rooms. Paltalkscene is the name of the client that accesses the chat service, but most people use the name of the service for the name of the client which is why I'm guessing why Paltalk comes to this page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.206.142.112 (talk) 04:55, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:OTHERSTUFF? The reasons you state are pretty convincing for including PalTalk in some list, not for a separate article. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 08:10, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment': Linux Planet. SL93 (talk) 13:24, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- "Some of you may have heard of PalTalk, though diehard Linux fans may not." Good implication of notability... — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 17:13, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yes, 4 pages of significant coverage does show notability. SL93 (talk) 20:03, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - In hundreds of AfD debates that I participated in, I never came across someone that said that PC Magazine does not show notability and that 4 pages does not show notability. Even a negative comment with 4 pages shows notability just like a negative review. Not to mention a 598 word article that is only about Paltalk. SL93 (talk) 20:08, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Scholarly articles - [14] and [15]. SL93 (talk) 20:15, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- [16] - "Online community pulled out all the stops in a multimedia conference involving author Stephen King." "According to Gore, the application is already gaining momentum. It was only launched in September, and has already featured guests like R&B sensation JoJo; rock icon Slash, formerly of the band Guns ‘n’ Roses; Jimmy Jean-Louis and Jack Coleman from the NBC-TV series Heroes; actor Rex Lee from HBO’s Entourage; filmmaker John Waters; actress and comedian Amy Sedaris; actor Chevy Chase; actor and comedian Richard Belzer; musician Paul Shaffer; and indie band BitterSweet." It's odd to compare this to all videoconferencing software. SL93 (talk) 22:50, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Used for military preparations. This is more than regular people using it. It is notable people and groups that are using it which are also reported in articles. How many videoconferencing software has that many notable guests and are used for military sessions? SL93 (talk) 22:55, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Well, given fairly large amount of notable living people, amount of military sessions and the other types of possible important uses of videoconferencing... probably all of them. Though the rest of links altogether is pretty convincing. BTW, was ever any IM client article deleted? — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 00:47, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - Added to 4 pages of a review, a 598 word article also, and 2 peer reviewed scholarly articles. I really doubt that all of them have received everything combined. Take a look at Digsby for example. I only found a PC Magazine review which does not hold up if that is all there is. I don't know how many have been deleted, but if there is one thing that Digsby shows - not all IM clients are like this. SL93 (talk) 00:56, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{Let's talk}_{about my edits?} 12:39, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Malaysia–Kenya relations

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

Haven't we had enough of these articles, and these discussions. i see no references here that expand upon the basic relations articles, and there are additional articles from this editor that do the same thing. Shadowjams (talk) 09:55, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

For those who haven't seem them could you give a precis of "these discussions" - I take it there have been some discussions on A-B relations articles? Or link to an example? thanks. Babakathy (talk) 11:04, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Kenya-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:30, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:30, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:31, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I have had enough of these nominations, which seem quite disruptive. It only takes a moment to find material which might be used to expand this stub. For example, see Malaysia and Singapore in international diplomacy. Warden (talk) 14:13, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment What is the bigger picture here: "enough of these articles" vs. "enough of these nominations"? Babakathy (talk) 14:38, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment What's being referred to is the many articles that cover relations between two countries who don't have particularly notable ties. I'm dubious about the notability of many of these articles - this one seems to hinge on a port agreement. Nwlaw63 (talk) 20:02, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Wikipedia talk:WikiProject International relations/Bilateral relations task force may be relevant here. --Northernhenge (talk) 20:46, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Some bilateral relations articles are appropriate for inclusion, but preferably they should be about pairs of countries which have had significant interaction in international affairs as measured by the general notability guideline. The fact that Malaysia and Kenya, which are described as having "a long history of warm and friendly bilateral relations", managed to spend most of their history as independent countries without having diplomatic missions to each other tends to suggest that their interaction has not been that significant. (Note that I am not saying that countries must have diplomatic relations for their relations to be notable; hostile relationships with no diplomatic relations can be notable too.) --Metropolitan90 (talk) 06:02, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There are two sources in the article plus that cited by Warden above, plus this, this and this after a quick search. I think this is "significant coverage". Babakathy (talk) 06:11, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The topic appears to be notable, including coverage in Yahoo News. The article was nominated for deletion about a day after it was created, which doesn't allow much reasonable time for other editors to copy edit, expand, improve the article, etc. Nominating a stub article for deletion right after it is created puts the article on a timer, but in this case, the timer likely isn't necessary. Northamerica1000^(talk) 17:44, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Sources are showing to indicate this is a topic discussed in multiple, reliable, independent published sources. To the nominator's rhetorical question: Haven't we had enough of these articles, and these discussions? — Yes on both counts. But the only time I ever see these low-value pieces is when someone gets all upset and hauls them to AfD. Just let it go, people who hate this genre, there are millions of articles on WP and most of them are of equally low value. Carrite (talk) 18:19, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A quick Google news search shows some results such as [17]. Others have found plenty of things as well. Dream Focus 20:56, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep passes GNG per extensive sources listed above. FeydHuxtable (talk) 17:56, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Max Semenik (talk) 19:03, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

PuppetMaster (software)

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

This article fails to comply with Wikipedia:Notability as it fails to introduce significant coverage in reliable secondary sources.

I tried to look for sources but the first page of Bing results did not yield anything, even though I searched +"PuppetMaster". A Softpedia download page shows that only version 1.0 of this product is ever released, once in 2004.[18] Fleet Command (talk) 09:49, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:56, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - unreferenced software article with no indication of notability. Dialectric (talk) 19:05, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Unreferenced. No indication of notability. Couldn't find significant coverage or anything to grant notability. Pit-yacker (talk) 19:31, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I found this, but one source is not enough. SL93 (talk) 01:40, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep - I added a reliable, tertiary book source to the article. The article is now referenced. Perhaps more sources can be found.

Flickenger, Rob; Weeks, Roger (2003). "Wireless hacks". Sebastopol, CA: O'Reilly. ISBN 0596005598. Retrieved January 10, 2012.

—Northamerica1000^(talk) 18:25, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, so we now have two passing mentions in secondary sources. I know I should not normally edit other people's messages but I took the liberty of editing your citation for better compliance with Wikipedia standard. ISBN parameter is an extremely useful one. I hope was not an ass. Fleet Command (talk) 13:52, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Rob Flickenger has two of his books used as references in three other articles. [19] This book gets 5 editorial reviews, so notable sources cover it. So its a good source. It doesn't just mention it in passing, but instead goes on about it for a couple of pages. Dream Focus 01:15, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

~~Five editorial reviews? Link please! Fleet Command (talk) 17:46, 13 January 2012 (UTC)~~[reply]
Okay, I did accepted it in the first place. But here we only have "in secondary source" (singular) while we need "significant coverage" and "sources" (plural) as well. Regards, Fleet Command (talk) 05:32, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Google book search shows it is covered in Cinefex: Issues 73-75. Cinefex is a notable publication. That makes two reliable sources giving it significant coverage. Dream Focus 01:20, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Don't see it. Link please! Fleet Command (talk) 17:46, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oh! Now I understand why. I was looking for "PuppetMaster" while you meant Puppet Master which is not relevant to this AfD. Regards, Fleet Command (talk) 05:32, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What? Click the Google book search at the top of the AFD. Its about the software. Dream Focus 05:52, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I did. Read SL93's reply below. Fleet Command (talk) 07:34, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

delete as not notable enough. Cinefex, a film effects magazine, is talking about one of the films, which leaves only one source and not much of that.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 21:47, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No. Its talking about the software used in a movie. Puppetmaster software was used to pull the multiple elements together and animate them as a whole. "Puppetmaster allowed us to animate a CG skeleton, fitting different models over it for each separate part of the effect," Dream Focus 05:52, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Um, did you read the article? This software does not make special effects. SL93 (talk) 06:40, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"PuppetMaster is an application for Windows and mobile which enables the mobile phone to be used as a universal remote control for Microsoft Windows." Why do you think that is the same as this? SL93 (talk) 06:43, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Lacks significant coverage in independent reliable sources. The second source is referring to another software. -- Whpq (talk) 17:54, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy delete (CSD A1: not enough context to identify the subject). JamesBWatson (talk) 11:20, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Bids for the Sing-Out Song Contest 2011

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

Article on a non-notable contest - that does not assert notability - and is unsourced. Fails WP:GNG by a mile. -- MST☆R ^{(Chat Me!)} 08:57, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 00:35, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Red aloe vera

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

Ok this is a bit of a weird situation. The user who created this page has attempted in the past to create a page entitled Red Aloe (Mis-belief), primarily about what exists in this article in the "assertions of medicinal properties section." It was speedy deleted twice (there might have also been an AFD but I can't remember), iirc, because red aloe vera already has an article at aloe ferox.

This page appears to be a WP:COATRACK that implies a difference between the plant Red Aloe and some non-notable, possibly non existent semisynthetic variation, all for the sake of including the information about the misconception regarding the actual A.ferox's medicinal properties.

The sources used do not appear to be speaking of this semisynthetic derivative as searching for the article name and "red aloe" does not return meaningful results, and nor am I able to find differentia in scientific literature between these concepts.

I'm submitting this article for deletion, and also seeking input as to whether this user should be cautioned about recreating this article content for the 3rd (or 4th) time outside of Aloe ferox (not implying that it belongs there as it seems to be an OR statement anyway). N^oformation ^Talk 08:21, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Actually I did remember wrong. There was an afd on this article at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Red Aloe (Mis-belief) - though I swear there was another article speedied under a different name. So this was probably eligible for a speedy again but since the AFD is already listed I'm not sure where to go from here wrt withdrawing and speedying or letting it run. I have no problem with either method if anyone wants to be bold. N^oformation ^Talk 08:30, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Were you thinking of Aloe Rubra, perhaps? It was deleted by PROD in December 09 Claret Ash 10:26, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:33, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:33, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I couldn't find a reliable source to establish notability. Axl ¤ [Talk] 02:17, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I couldn't find a reliable source to establish veracity. Plus, a search of Xylem Structure and the Ascent of Sap and The Physiology of the Ascent of SAP By Jagadis Chandra Bose, both used as sources, suggests no species of Aloe is mentioned in either text. Claret Ash 06:43, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment @Claretash. Not sure if that was the article I was thinking of. I think I've shown my memory is not to be trusted since I was the one who did the last AFD but didn't remember doing so :) N^oformation ^Talk 01:29, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- From the name, I suspect Aloe Rubra may have been on the same topic. Nonetheless, wouldn't the previous AfD outcome make this article eligible for CSD:G4? I'm hesitant to push for G4 as the last AfD didn't exactly close with a resounding consensus (two participants) plus I can't see the previous article to compare. Claret Ash 10:54, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yes it would be, however I listed it for AFD having not recalled the old one and figured I'd let it run unless someone else wanted to be bold and CSD it. No big deal, it's not a keeper anyway so next time it's recreated it will be quick with two prior AFDs. N^oformation ^Talk 20:27, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - I've been bold and submitted it for G4. Claret Ash 23:26, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 18:21, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Islam and sexual techniques

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

The article duplicates Islamic views on anal sex and Sexuality in Islam Shrike (talk) 06:50, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, the topic is well covered in Sexuality in Islam and there appears no value in this CONTENT FORK. Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:38, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is a content fork from an article that already has major problems. How is anal sex the same as intercourse during menstruation? This article conflates the two. The references are dead links. Certainly, encyclopedic coverage of topics relating to how religions attempt to regulate sexual behavior are appropriate. However, such articles must be well-referenced, neutral and balanced. This article fails that simple test. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:52, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fork of Islamic views on anal sex (which is itself an OR extravaganza with POV overtones, for what it's worth...) Carrite (talk) 09:27, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:35, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:35, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think what we really need is one article called sexuality in Islam (which is presently a redirect) and we should merge Islam and sexual techniques, Islamic views on anal sex, Islamic views on oral sex, Islam and sexual orientation and Islam and masturbation into that. Better to have one full article than a whole bunch of short ones.—S Marshall T/C 20:05, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That would seem to be the encyclopedic topic. Carrite (talk) 23:18, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This seems logical. And since the basis for deletion of this article is that it duplicates information found in those articles it would seem like a solution to possible future AfDs too. --Carbon Rodney 10:21, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed with this proposal. Cavarrone (talk) 07:30, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Closer please note the current length of the article has been whittled away considerably from its state as of 22 February 2011 Anarchangel (talk) 21:51, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The redirect option is not chosen because this is not an obvious search term. Der yck C. 22:09, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Bloom (winx club)

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

Unreferenced article about a fictional character. No evidence this character is independently notable. The article is full of original research and personal opinions. The article contains too much information, much of it trivia - anything that can be sourced could be included in the main Winx Club article - indeed much of of this information is already there. This is a recreation of the article Bloom (Winx Club) that was deleted four days ago after an uncontested proposed deletion. Bringing here for wider discussion. Sparthorse (talk) 05:39, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is copy-pasted from [20], a much more suitable location for such a detailed article on a fictional character. Bloom has her own paragraph on Winx Club. By the way, Sparthorse, if this is a recreated deleted article then it is a candidate for speedy deletion under criterion G4. --Carbon Rodney 06:10, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Actually G4 only applies if the article was deleted at AfD. The previous deletion was after a prod expired, so G4 does not apply. Hence this AfD. Sparthorse (talk) 06:13, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:54, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:55, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:55, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and above suggestion, Sadads (talk) 15:28, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom reasons. Tokyogirl79 (talk) 18:12, 9 January 2012 (UTC)tokyogirl79[reply]
Redirect and Merge to Winx Club, per nom. A412 (Talk * C) 16:58, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Is there anything sourced to merge? Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 12:11, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Redirect. As Martijn correctly implies, there is zero that is sourced that we might consider merging.--Epeefleche (talk) 18:51, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/BYU Cougars future football schedules. Apologies for the double redirect Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 15:00, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Colorado Buffaloes football future schedule

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

Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of sports trivia. There's nothing encyclopedic about incomplete future schedules. The user who created this can move this information to a user sub-page, then extract that info when the time comes. GrapedApe (talk) 04:42, 9 January 2012 (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/2012 January 9. Snotbot t • c » 04:58, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. Paul McDonald (talk) 05:07, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep article is sourced with independent reliable sources, surpasses WP:GNG and does not violate any policy. Clearly not indiscriminate.--Paul McDonald (talk) 05:12, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all reasons I, and others, have mentioned in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/East Carolina Pirates future football schedules‎ (the original one of these types of articles to get nominated). Jrcla2 (talk) 05:30, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I am the nominator of the East Carolina article of the same kind. I did not know about the BYU, Notre Dame and Colorado articles when nominating ECU's. Once I became aware of that fact after the arguments began for ECU, I decided it would be much better to wait and see what the final conclusion turns out to be before nominating any of the other ones. If the end result is delete, then the BYU, Notre Dame and Colorado articles could irrefutably be speedy deleted on the basis of precedence. If the result turned out to be no consensus or keep, then I would have left these alone. I think it's counterproductive to have all of these individual AfDs going on at one time when they're all about the exact same issue and I kind of wish these new AfDs were never created. It's just going to create a scattering of rehashed arguments over the span of four different deletion discussions :/ Jrcla2 (talk) 05:30, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Response "irrefutably" ? I don't think so. They are not about the exact same topic, each article is different and has its own set of reliable sources.--Paul McDonald (talk) 05:35, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Response An article really needs to fit CSD criteria for it to be speedy deleted. However, consistency is good and I expect these four articles to all have the same fate. --Carbon Rodney 06:20, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - For what it's worth, I agree with the idea that these articles should meet the same fate. Location (talk) 06:45, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - I also agree that all such articles should meet the same fate. cmadler (talk) 16:30, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Very Weak Keep - This article is sourced mainly by primary sources. The Daily Camera link doesn't appear to link to the article it is intended to, for whatever reasons. However, there are definitely sources available. This article needs more references from reliable secondary sources. Northamerica1000^(talk) 09:58, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:54, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this will definately be a notable topic, but not under this title and not today. There just aren't sufficient reliable sources available. Until the schedule is annouced, this article will be completely based on conjecture and rumor and is merely WP:CRYSTAL ball gazing. RadioFan (talk) 15:04, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Some schools do not announce schedules more than 1 or 2 years ahead. However, some schools and conferences announce schedules much further ahead (some rivalries announce partnerships for decades!). These are all from reliable, cite-able articles, and as such, there is no WP:CRYSTAL involved, especially since that specifically talks about unverifiable future-ness. MECU≈talk 02:54, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the numerous reasons listed on the East Carolina page. PG Pirate 17:42, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the reasoning I provided in the East Carolina deletion discussion: "I agree that it does not violate WP:CRYSTAL; while the individual games might not be notable enough for standalone articles, the seasons certainly will be, and the games once scheduled are highly likely to actually be played. The article also does not violate WP:HAMMER; the closest thing a football season has to a "track list" is a list of scheduled games, and that is precisely what the article is listing... The media frequently reports on teams scheduling future out of conference opponents as demonstrated by the sourcing in the article; it is not "trivial" as asserted by the nominator. I believe the material in the article meets WP:GNG and therefore should be kept." –Grondemar 04:01, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy and transform Like my vote at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/East Carolina Pirates future football schedules, I suggest that this page be converted into the pages for the 2012, 2013, 2014, etc., seasons in userspace. An incomplete list of future games isn't quite so helpful, but these sourced entries should develop the season articles to which they belong. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:16, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I am the creator. It meets all criteria and is sourced. It is not trivia, and since all the information will be included in another article in the future, there is no reason to delete it now. Specifically, there could be announced changes to the schedule that would be more difficult to capture later on and articles would there be LESS COMPLETE AND THOROUGH than possible. All because someone wanted to delete delete delete. MECU≈talk 02:54, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy and transform Per my reasons at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/East Carolina Pirates future football schedules, convert into the pages for the 2012, 2013, 2014, etc. for the opponents for individual seasons. If the intent is to also see a snapshot of a series with a specific opponent over many years, the article should be renamed and reformatted to Colorado Buffaloes football opponents or List of Colorado Buffaloes football opponents. Readers are used to the convention of "XXXX Colorado Buffaloes football team" to get to a specific season and will have difficulty finding this article or the schedule they are looking for, and having to create redirects is yet another overhead this current format will create. Avoid the overhead of create proper redirects. Avoid having to guard against duplicate schedule information when the season article is inevitably created. Having separate articles for each future season would be more user-friendly and less unwieldy for readers and editors alike. If we want to provide a view of a series with a specific opponent over many years, this would also be notable for past opponent and not just future opponents. Have an article or list of all opponents that shows the historical series record, relevant notes, and any commitments for future games.—Bagumba (talk) 17:31, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all of these articles References exist for the information. Look at the template. Eventually this will be an article for 2012. No reason not to have it now listing when games are scheduled. These games are all notable events, having ample coverage and a massive number of people watching them. Dream Focus 17:31, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. This has a lot more keep !votes, and less delete, but the discussion and arguments brought forward are essentially the same as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/East Carolina Pirates future football schedules I don't think its unreasonable to say that proponents of deleting the article would have similar arguments here. As such, it would be unreasonable to have a much different outcome. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 14:59, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

BYU Cougars future football schedules

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

Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of sports trivia. There's nothing encyclopedic about incomplete future schedules. The user who created this can move this information to a user sub-page, then extract that info when the time comes. GrapedApe (talk) 04:42, 9 January 2012 (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/2012 January 9. Snotbot t • c » 04:57, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep First of all, WP:NOT doesn't say anything about "indiscriminate collections of sports trivia." Please don't make up policy to support your position. Second of all, when exactly does "the time come"? at the end of the previous season? At the start of the new season? Two months before? Three? Who decides? Lastly, and perhaps most importantly, BYU's schedule is unusual in that they do not have a preset, conference schedule because they play as an independent, making this information a bit more relevant than it might be for other teams in the NCAA (other than, perhaps, Notre Dame). Wrad (talk) 04:57, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep article is well sourced and exceeds WP:GNG standards. Also, the list is not indiscriminate but is specifically about BYU football schedules.--Paul McDonald (talk) 05:04, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. Paul McDonald (talk) 05:07, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per all reasons I, and others, have mentioned in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/East Carolina Pirates future football schedules‎ (the original one of these types of articles to get nominated). Jrcla2 (talk) 05:30, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Those reasons don't apply here, since the way BYU schedules its seasons is quite different from East Carolina. See my comments below. Wrad (talk) 17:44, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I am the nominator of the East Carolina article of the same kind. I did not know about the BYU, Notre Dame and Colorado articles when nominating ECU's. Once I became aware of that fact after the arguments began for ECU, I decided it would be much better to wait and see what the final conclusion turns out to be before nominating any of the other ones. If the end result is delete, then the BYU, Notre Dame and Colorado articles could irrefutably be speedy deleted on the basis of precedence. If the result turned out to be no consensus or keep, then I would have left these alone. I think it's counterproductive to have all of these individual AfDs going on at one time when they're all about the exact same issue and I kind of wish these new AfDs were never created. It's just going to create a scattering of rehashed arguments over the span of four different deletion discussions :/ Jrcla2 (talk) 05:30, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Response "irrefutably" ? I don't think so. They are not about the exact same topic, each article is different and has its own set of reliable sources.--Paul McDonald (talk) 05:35, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- For what it's worth, I agree with the idea that these articles should meet the same fate. Location (talk) 06:46, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I also agree that these articles should meet the same fate. cmadler (talk) 16:29, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I strongly disagree that all should meet the same fate. BYU and Notre Dame are very different programs from the other two for reasons that I have already pointed out. They do net have set, conference schedules from year to year. Virtually their entire schedule is a blank slate. Colorado and ECU, on the other hand, are in conferences, and only have a small handful of games that are independently determined each year. Wrad (talk) 17:10, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - I would like to add that scheduling decisions at BYU and Notre Dame, unlike those at East Carolina, are regularly followed by national news organizations, as evidenced by the sources used in this article. If you look closely, you will see citations to ESPN, CBS, NBC, USA Today, and the Associated Press. You will not find these kinds of sources for East Carolina. Wrad (talk) 05:15, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This article is well sourced, and—despite what the nominator suggests—it violates no policies. With dozens of citations to reliable sources, the article easily meets WP:GNG. The nominator's rationale is a pure I don't like it argument. —Ute in DC (talk) 05:49, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The article is well sourced by numerous independent, third-party reliable sources, and has a discriminate focus. A useful article for Wikipedia readers. Northamerica1000^(talk) 09:41, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Move info to the appropriate season article and delete this article or redirect it to the most relevent section of BYU Cougars football. Rather than have an article that is in a constant state of flux, one of the options presented on the East Carolina page was that of moving the schedule to the season article it will be in, i.e. 2012 BYU Cougars football team, 2013 BYU Cougars football team, etc. It's going to get moved there eventually anyway. A subheading on the main BYU Cougars football page could highlight some of the higher-profile future opponents and have links to the upcoming season articles. --JonRidinger (talk) 13:37, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:53, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the numerous reasons listed on the East Carolina page. PG Pirate 17:40, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the reasoning I provided in the East Carolina deletion discussion: "I agree that it does not violate WP:CRYSTAL; while the individual games might not be notable enough for standalone articles, the seasons certainly will be, and the games once scheduled are highly likely to actually be played. The article also does not violate WP:HAMMER; the closest thing a football season has to a "track list" is a list of scheduled games, and that is precisely what the article is listing. Sourcing is for the most part high-quality, being from local newspapers. The media frequently reports on teams scheduling future out of conference opponents as demonstrated by the sourcing in the article; it is not "trivial" as asserted by the nominator. I believe the material in the article meets WP:GNG and therefore should be kept." –Grondemar 04:02, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep has proper citations, is encyclopedic, provides resource of information that is unavailable elsewhere in succinct format --Trödel 17:15, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Wrad's comments. —Eustress ^talk 21:18, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy and transform Like my vote at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/East Carolina Pirates future football schedules, I suggest that this page be converted into the pages for the 2012, 2013, 2014, etc., seasons in userspace. An incomplete list of future games isn't quite so helpful, but these sourced entries should develop the season articles to which they belong. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:16, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Please don't apply your judgement of East Carolina's Afd here so easily. BYU is not the same thing as East Carolina. Information about future schedules is more significant for teams like BYU and Notre Dame because the are Independent schools and are thus not a part of a conference with a set schedule. Rather than having three or four games to schedule on their own accord each year, BYU and Notre Dame have to schedule all twelve or thirteen games in their season of their own accord. The entire season is up in the air until contracts are signed and announcements are made. The significance of these teams' schedules as compared to East Carolina's is apparent if you compare the sources used in this article to those used in the East Carolina article. This article cites national news sources, such as CBS, ESPN, NBC, USA Today, and the Associated Press. East Carolina does not. Wrad (talk) 01:26, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The fact that Notre Dame and BYU are independent, while ECU is not, does not factor into the decision making process here. There is verifiable information regarding future matchups for all three teams that should be included in Wikipedia by creating the relevant season articles. Whether sources are national or regional also doesn't matter. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:26, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Would you seriously not vote delete on a 2015 BYU Cougars football season article that used the data (1 game) provided here? Wrad (talk) 23:48, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy and transform Per my reasons at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/East Carolina Pirates future football schedules, convert into the pages for the 2012, 2013, 2014, etc. for the opponents for individual seasons. If the intent is to also see a snapshot of a series with a specific opponent over many years, the article should be renamed and reformatted to BYU Cougars football opponents or List of BYU Cougars football opponents. Readers are used to the convention of "XXXX BYU Cougars football team" to get to a specific season and will have difficulty finding this article or the schedule they are looking for, and having to create redirects is yet another overhead this current format will create. Avoid the overhead of create proper redirects. Avoid having to guard against duplicate schedule information when the season article is inevitably created. Having separate articles for each future season would be more user-friendly and less unwieldy for readers and editors alike. If we want to provide a view of a series with a specific opponent over many years, this would also be notable for past opponent and not just future opponents. Have an article or list of all opponents that shows the historical series record, relevant notes, and any commitments for future games.—Bagumba (talk) 17:28, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Once again, we have someone copying and pasting their opinions from the East Carolina page to this page without even bothering to read or respond directly to the arguments made on this page. BYU is not East Carolina. Wrad (talk) 17:52, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Perhaps you can reconsider. My comments are related to presentation and logistics and nothing specifically related to the individual teams. Thanks you.—Bagumba (talk) 18:03, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - How can you make an argument about presentation and logistics when you don't even know what the individual team issues are? Wrad (talk) 18:04, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      - I kindly ask that editors assume good faith that all points are being considered, and to please point out specifics that may have inadvertently been missed without generalizations about participants' abilities to comprehend.—Bagumba (talk) 18:12, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        Alright, then. Because BYU is an Independent school without a football conference, fewer of the teams that it plays are played against as part of a series, they might play one team here, another team there, and so on, so the change you are proposing would be extremely unwieldy and wouldn't really fall into any logical, comprehensible form. It would be a big mess. Even more so than East Carolina's would be. You say that readers are used to other conventions, but this article has been around for well over a year and is doing just fine. It follows the format set up by the Notre Dame article, which has been around for over three years and has also been doing just fine. A new convention was created by Wikipedians covering Independent schools that they found convenient to themselves and their readership. Yes, other, Wikipedians covering other, non-Conference schools such as Colorado and East Carolina have copied this format, despite the fact that 1) their schools have more conventional, predictable schedules and 2) they have less national press coverage focusing on their non-conference scheduling. The fact that this (good faith) copying occurred, however, should not be used as a weapon in this AfD. What East Carolina and Colorado articles have done with this format is irrelevant here.
        
        To wrap up, both BYU and Notre Dame are Independent schools, unlike East Carolina. They put their schedules together in a different way than any other schools in the nation do. On Wikipedia, non-Independent schools present their schedules in these ways: [21] [22]. Should Independent schools be forced to conform? Of course not. Why not? Because they are unique. I think there is something very wrong with putting these schools in the same pot with typical conference schools and forcing them to present their schedules in the same way as everyone else, in the name of "convention." Wrad (talk) 18:29, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        If an article sorted by opponents is not applicable, then there is no need to create one. Previous arguments in the other AfD were concerned with maintaining a view of all series if this article was deleted and moved to individual season articles instead. The discussion moves to why not move this to the ""XXXX BYU Cougars football team" articles, when the season is notable with verifiable information, especially if each season is independent with few common opponents from year-to-year.—Bagumba (talk) 19:30, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        See my comments below. 21:06, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
        
        To the extent that we're talking about how information should be presented (as opposed to whether information should be included at all), there is some value in considering all the relevant articles. It's certainly not necessary that all such cases follow the same convention, and possibly not desirable (see Wrad's comments on independent versus conference-affiliated scheduling) but not unreasonable for us to discuss it. cmadler (talk) 19:04, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        I would say that distinctions should be made even if we are talking about "whether information should be included at all" for one very simple reason: BYU and Notre Dame's scheduling decisions are covered by national news sources such as ABC, NBC, the Associate Press, CBS, and ESPN. East Carolina and and Colorao's are not. BYU and Notre Dame's future schedules are thus more notable, and it is notability that determines right to exist on Wikipedia. Judge this article on its own terms, not on East Carolina's. Wrad (talk) 19:35, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        I support the information in this article being in other articles. I'll keep my discussions to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/East Carolina Pirates future football schedules for now while the Afd is still open.—Bagumba (talk) 20:40, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Splitting this article up into a bunch of season articles would be unwieldy and inconvenient. It is much more simple and handy to have everything in one place. When you have schedules being made into the 2020s for one or two teams (Boise St and Notre Dame, for example), and no other teams are on the schedule for those years. When these future match-ups are being reported in national news sources and are highly notable, but no other match-ups are set up for that year, would you still make a 2020 season article for it? Should a Wikipedia reader have to click on over a dozen different articles to see future seasons?

I will tell you what I would support, and this might be something that could work for both independent and non-Independent schools: What if we had an article like this one: [[23]], that listed information of future seasons and served as a holder until the season became current? I would support that kind of look. It would keep the information convenient and it would also keep things conventional. Wrad (talk) 21:07, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As I mentioned on the East Carolina deletion discussion several weeks ago, I think such articles should be named using the convention SCHOOL MASCOT football future seasons (so this would be "BYU Cougars football future seasons"). I think that would be a step in the right direction. cmadler (talk) 21:31, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wrad, that was what my comment was in regards to (2012 BYU Cougars football team for example) and a similar one from another editor on the East Carolina discussion. The seasons will be made into articles anyway, so there's no reason why we can't start putting them together now. It's not the info that has me concerned, it's the guaranteed state of such an article as "future schedules" being perpetually out-dated. A specific season article will only have a limited period where it will become out-dated and need updated. --JonRidinger (talk) 22:09, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please see my proposal on the East Carolina Afd. (And have a little faith in Wikipedians, Jon! BYU and Notre Dame's future seasons articles are far from perpetually out-dated. They are very well kept-up!) Wrad (talk) 22:47, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article has plenty of reliable sources to meet GNG. The key difference between BYU and most other college football teams is that they're independent (have no conference). No conference means no set schedule of opponents. Royal broil 03:45, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Leaning slightly more to keep, but the arguments in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/East Carolina Pirates future football schedules hold for this AfD as well Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 12:06, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Notre Dame Fighting Irish football future schedule

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

Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of sports trivia. There's nothing encyclopedic about incomplete future schedules. The user who created this can move this information to a user sub-page, then extract that info when the time comes. GrapedApe (talk) 04:42, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. Paul McDonald (talk) 05:07, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep look at the sources. Clearly not indiscriminate. See also: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/BYU Cougars future football schedules, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Colorado Buffaloes football future schedule, and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/East Carolina Pirates future football schedules.--Paul McDonald (talk) 05:11, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all reasons I, and others, have mentioned in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/East Carolina Pirates future football schedules‎ (the original one of these types of articles to get nominated). Jrcla2 (talk) 05:30, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I am the nominator of the East Carolina article of the same kind. I did not know about the BYU, Notre Dame and Colorado articles when nominating ECU's. Once I became aware of that fact after the arguments began for ECU, I decided it would be much better to wait and see what the final conclusion turns out to be before nominating any of the other ones. If the end result is delete, then the BYU, Notre Dame and Colorado articles could irrefutably be speedy deleted on the basis of precedence. If the result turned out to be no consensus or keep, then I would have left these alone. I think it's counterproductive to have all of these individual AfDs going on at one time when they're all about the exact same issue and I kind of wish these new AfDs were never created. It's just going to create a scattering of rehashed arguments over the span of four different deletion discussions :/ Jrcla2 (talk) 05:30, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Response "irrefutably" ? I don't think so. They are not about the exact same topic, each article is different and has its own set of reliable sources.--Paul McDonald (talk) 05:35, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Don't you have some Kansas backyard NAIA teams to write about? Jrcla2 (talk) 05:38, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - ummm that's not a reason to delete this article.--Paul McDonald (talk) 11:57, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - The more I think about it, the more I think you were attempting to be offensive to me on that one. What was your intention of posting that statement?--Paul McDonald (talk) 03:04, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      - Clearly the person who started this whole deletion move has personal issues with what he considers "insignificant" sports teams. I especially resent the Kansas comment. Wrad (talk) 00:40, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- For what it's worth, I agree with the idea that these articles should meet the same fate. Location (talk) 06:47, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I also agree that all such articles should meet the same fate. cmadler (talk) 16:29, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I strongly disagree that all should meet the same fate. BYU and Notre Dame are very different programs from the other two for reasons that I have already pointed out. They do net have set, conference schedules from year to year. Virtually their entire schedule is a blank slate. Colorado and ECU, on the other hand, are in conferences, and only have a small handful of games that are independently determined each year. Wrad (talk) 17:21, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The article is well sourced by numerous independent, third-party reliable sources, therefore passing WP:GNG. It also has a discriminate focus, and is a useful article for Wikipedia readers. Northamerica1000^(talk) 09:47, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:52, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the numerous reasons listed on the East Carolina page. PG Pirate 17:39, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the reasoning I provided in the East Carolina deletion discussion: "I agree that it does not violate WP:CRYSTAL; while the individual games might not be notable enough for standalone articles, the seasons certainly will be, and the games once scheduled are highly likely to actually be played. The article also does not violate WP:HAMMER; the closest thing a football season has to a "track list" is a list of scheduled games, and that is precisely what the article is listing. Sourcing is for the most part high-quality, being from local newspapers. The media frequently reports on teams scheduling future out of conference opponents as demonstrated by the sourcing in the article; it is not "trivial" as asserted by the nominator. I believe the material in the article meets WP:GNG and therefore should be kept." –Grondemar 04:00, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy and transform Like my vote at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/East Carolina Pirates future football schedules, I suggest that this page be converted into the pages for the 2012, 2013, 2014, etc., seasons in userspace. An incomplete list of future games isn't quite so helpful, but these sourced entries should develop the season articles to which they belong. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:17, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Please don't apply your judgement of East Carolina's Afd here so easily. Notre Dame is not the same thing as East Carolina. Information about future schedules is more significant for teams like BYU and Notre Dame because the are Independent schools and are thus not a part of a conference with a set schedule. Rather than having three or four games to schedule on their own accord each year, BYU and Notre Dame have to schedule all twelve or thirteen games in their season of their own accord. The entire season is up in the air until contracts are signed and announcements are made. Wrad (talk) 01:26, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The fact that Notre Dame and BYU are independent, while ECU is not, does not factor into the decision making process here. There is verifiable information regarding future matchups for all three teams that should be included in Wikipedia by creating the relevant season articles. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:25, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Would you seriously not vote delete on a 2015 Notre Dame Fighting Irish football season article that used the data provided here? Wrad (talk) 23:47, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy and transform Per my reasons at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/East Carolina Pirates future football schedules, convert into the pages for the 2012, 2013, 2014, etc. for the opponents for individual seasons. If the intent is to also see a snapshot of a series with a specific opponent over many years, the article should be renamed and reformatted to Notre Dame Fighting Irish football opponents or List of Notre Dame Fighting Irish football opponents. Readers are used to the convention of "XXXX Notre Dame Fighting Irish football team" to get to a specific season and will have difficulty finding this article or the schedule they are looking for, and having to create redirects is yet another overhead this current format will create. Avoid the overhead of create proper redirects. Avoid having to guard against duplicate schedule information when the season article is inevitably created. Having separate articles for each future season would be more user-friendly and less unwieldy for readers and editors alike. If we want to provide a view of a series with a specific opponent over many years, this would also be notable for past opponent and not just future opponents. Have an article or list of all opponents that shows the historical series record, relevant notes, and any commitments for future games.—Bagumba (talk) 17:26, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 00:36, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Social hardware

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

With so much discussion of social software, it seems inevitable that the phrase "social hardware" would show up in a variety of contexts, and it does - a Google search shows 20,000 results. Still, there seems to be no standard meaning at all to this phrase - it seems to have been used at different times to refer to any communications device, like writing instruments, or to electronic systems like telephones and televisions, or to cellphones with social-networking features like Facebook apps, or even (according to the article) to currency like bills and coins. Other than one mention in what sounds like an obscure academic book, I see no evidence that this phrase has a defined meaning that has had notable usage. Yaron K. (talk) 03:34, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete "The term Social Hardware appears, perhaps for the first time, in a 1979 book by Johnston and Gummet" This looks very suspiciously like original research to me. I think this is a term for Wiktionary, not a Wikipedia article; compare Pig in a poke (a pseudorandomly selected phrase whose article should belong on Wikipedia). --Carbon Rodney 06:57, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:49, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This seems to want to treat something like a church as if it were a Facebook app. This is WP:RECENTISM and is done better in articles such as Human ecology. Warden (talk) 14:28, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete "The term has entered popular use..." oh, no it hasn't. Notability not established. A lot of it reads like original research. Tigerboy1966 (talk) 17:28, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A Wiki-invention by and large. History2007 (talk) 15:19, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 11:58, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Toronto Standard

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

I'm placing this here because the language of the article seems to be a bit inflated, and carries with it a sort of self-promotional feel - and I'm thinking it's controversial enough where the notability of this page is at question. Could be wrong, but there's where I feel the controversy will lie. Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 03:11, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I've de-peacocked and tidied it up a bit. If there is to be controversy it should be on the quality of the sources, not the writing. Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:48, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Five sources are provided. The rival Torontoist admits its bias, and announces the launch as an unknown quantity. Masthead just reports the forthcoming launch. Source 3, Torontoist again, describes the original 1848 Standard newspaper. Playground is the website designer, so good evidence of what the site's goals were but no use for notability. Finally, Masthead proves that the Canadian Online Publishing Awards were given - one RS. So we don't yet have "multiple, reliable" sources. Fails WP:TOOSOON. Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:58, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:46, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:47, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There's a systemic bias by news media against their commercial rivals. It is reasons of this sort that give us some wiggle room in the notability guideline and prevent it from being a hard policy. We seem to have enough sourcing to confirm the essential facts and there seems to be no reason we can't maintain this as a non-promotional stub pending further expansion over time. Warden (talk) 14:46, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Mmm, is Wikipedia capable of such generous intelligence? Good to hear it. I agree that the basic facts of the site's existence are not in doubt, so why not. Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:35, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As an early newspaper in 19th century Toronto, it's eminently notable. I could care less about the 2010 use of the name on a website, but I've added two categories for the original paper. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:10, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 11:59, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

At the Zoo (2012 Film)

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

Citing WP:NF here. This is an indy film that is currently in production. An additional note, though, is that I am unable to find anything about this film on a quick Google search. Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 03:08, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This film is not listed in the Internet Movie Database yet, nor has any news coverage of it been found, nor is there any evidence that it will actually be distributed to the public once it is completed. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 06:04, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:44, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, somebody's homemade film, not notable. NawlinWiki (talk) 16:05, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Userfy back to author per WP:NFF. Non-RS tell us that director Parker Stanfield sought funding,[24] and began shoting his film,[25][26][27] If or when this is completed, gets screened and receives coverage in reliable sources, an article might be considered... but nope... Not Just Yet. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 19:18, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Teen Wolf#Plot. (non-admin closure) Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{Let's talk}_{about my edits?} 12:33, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Scott Howard (character)

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

Character does not appear notable enough to introduce separately from the article Teen Wolf. Zzarch (talk) 01:18, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

User:Getyourgoat The Scott Howard character is "notable enough", as the character appears in two different cities for the movie Teen Wolf, and the cartoon series Teen Wolf (1986 TV series). The cartoon series takes place in Wolverton, where the movie does not. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Getyourgoat (talk • contribs) 01:25, 9 January 2012‎

It would then appear that this character may be appropriately introduced in a series article, such as "Teen Wolf (series)". Zzarch (talk) 01:29, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:41, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:41, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:41, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Teen Wolf#Plot where the character of Scott Howard is already spoken of in detail and in context. Lacks required notability for a separate article. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 19:25, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, works for me.--Getyourgoat (talk) 19:30, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Teen Wolf or Teen Wolf#Plot Sottolacqua (talk) 17:05, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was SNOW DELETE. Lenticel ^(talk) 07:32, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Lebanon: Story of the Undead

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

A book that makes no claim about notability. Author removed WP:PROD. Zzarch (talk) 01:00, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:CRYSTAL - book has not yet been published. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:33, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Snowball delete the book isn't even written yet. That puts it so far from having anything to discuss that it's not worth wasting our time. --Nat Gertler (talk) 06:28, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - and maybe userfy. Didn't find any coverage in RS after searching. Fails WP:GNG. Northamerica1000^(talk) 10:18, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Why don't we have speedy deletion for this sort of thing? JamesBWatson (talk) 12:00, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:37, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, "The book is currently being written and is not yet published." See WP:MADEUP. NawlinWiki (talk) 16:06, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Can't find reliable sources for this. Nwlaw63 (talk) 20:22, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Made up. Crystal ball gazing. Nonsense. SL93 (talk) 01:38, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Snowball delete A book that doesn't exist gets a page that doesn't exist. Dori ☾Talk ⁘ Contribs☽ 03:23, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. relisting yet again is too much of a good thing. It looks like there is genuinely no consensus to delete here. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 12:07, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Christopher Smith (performer)

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

No independent nobility - perhaps a redirect target to Whose Line Is It Anyway?. Youreallycan (talk) 01:11, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:07, 15 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, Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 10:10, 22 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, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 12:33, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fairly harmless page, but notability not established. V. difficult to find any good sources owing to the name of the artist. Maybe I'm biased against any article that contains an incorrect use of the word "legendary". Tigerboy1966 (talk) 17:42, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Agree that sources are difficult to find, but that's no reason to delete. I've gone ahead and added two. He's been in newspapers, is listed on IMDB, and has worked with notable performers, that's enough for me. --El on ka 17:22, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I could be wrong, but I don't think IMDB is enough to establish notability, as it lists everyone indiscriminately.Tigerboy1966 (talk) 18:53, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Correct, it's not enough by itself to establish notability, but in combination with the other sources (and I'm confident that I could find more), it helps in combination. --El on ka 15:21, 31 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) 00:51, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Sources do exist. Here's a Google search that lists several.[28] --Elonka 00:43, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Well done for finding the sources but I'm afraid we have hit another problem. (Please note that I'm not just being awkward about this!). Notability requires some depth of coverage, and that's very difficult to do when a book search only has "snippet" views available: I know this because I have hit the same problem with some of the articles I have started. Tigerboy1966 (talk) 01:54, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 00:37, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sarah J. Tracy

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

Subject appears to be a non-notable "organizational communication scholar" (wot dat?). Appears to be a vanity piece. Uncategorized. No outside sources other than publications of the subject. Lot's of stuff that looks like copy-pasted original research. --Legis (talk - contribs) 05:23, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Seems like an essay on her theories. Not seeing how this passes wp:prof, at least not yet. At best, most of this article is fluffy, patting oneself on the back content, with few claims to fame, and those being stated to have been sourced in her own writings. Sounds entirely too promotional. Dennis Brown (talk) 16:34, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:31, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Meets WP:PROF criterion #1 (significant impact in scholarly discipline, broadly construed). Has an h-index of 14 on GS, with 3 top pubs with cites in the 100s. Has at least one book, Leading organizations through transition, currently in more than 350 major libraries worldwide according to WorldCat. The article is a mess; I will do some major cleaning up on it.--Eric Yurken (talk) 02:31, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Just another associate professor, not to mention the WP:BLP concerns since there are no references to support the claims in the article. —Eustress ^talk 06:41, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 21:20, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BusterD (talk) 02:56, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Despite the book, there isn't enough reliable stuff to be found on the subject. —Ed!^(talk) 20:29, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Her book, Leading organizations through transition is by Sage, a leading publisher in the subject, and is in about 350 Worldcat libraries, though she was not the principle author. But Google scholar shows articles with 147, 127, 115.... citations--some of them papers in which she is sole author. h=15, but what is significant is not the raw value, but that there are 3 items in the 100s. My personal feeling is that all afd comments including the phrase "just another ..." should be stricken. There are very few articles in Wikipedia about which that comment could not be made. DGG ( talk ) 22:36, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. Per DGG, though I think that is enough for only a weak keep.--Epeefleche (talk) 00:43, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Bryce (talk | contribs) 00:48, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete ~~per WP:BLPPROD~~, as the article cites no references to support notability. Zzarch (talk) 01:38, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per DGG, whose assessment of pieces on scholars I respect. Carrite (talk) 03:02, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. I don't think the book alone is enough, because it was done while she was a student and her advisor is the primary co-author. But as DGG notes there are three publications with over 100 cites each — I think that may be enough for WP:PROF#C1. I've done some cleanup to fix the BLPPROD issues. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:05, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Can someone clarify please. Is the h=15 value for her personally (in which case, great) or the book to which she contributed (in which case, not so great)? Emeraude (talk) 18:29, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - It's for her personally — it is not possible for a single publication to have an h-index. h=15 means that at least 15 of her publications each have at least 15 citations from other publications. Personally, I'm more convinced by the fact that at least three of her publications each have at least 100 citations; 15 citations is not that hard to achieve but 100 citations means it's made something of an impact. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:36, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 00:34, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dimitri Prifti

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

Contested PROD. Concern was Article about a footballer who fails WP:GNG and who has not played in a fully pro league. PROD was contested by an IP without providing a reason. Sir Sputnik (talk) 00:29, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 00:29, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 00:29, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 00:29, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Mattythewhite (talk) 00:37, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:ATHLETE. LibStar (talk) 06:57, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 08:37, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 09:22, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - According to EPAE.org, Prifti has only made the substitute's bench and there is no evidence this article would satisfy the GNG. Jogurney (talk) 20:41, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Argyle 4 Life^talk 14:37, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedily deleted as a blatant hoax by Fastily. (non-admin closure) -- Luke (Talk) 01:28, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Quizlet VS.

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

No reference provided to support the claim that this TV show actually exists. No Ghits. The uploaded logo appears to be a child's drawing. Hoax? -- Mufka ^(u) ^(t) ^(c) 00:18, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This is probably a complete fiction which portrays Jeff Foxworthy as supposedly hosting a game show on Radio Television of Vojvodina. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 00:28, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete under CSD G3 as a pure hoax. No Google results prove this fake show's existence, nor do any of the creators' articles contain proof that they "created" it and vice versa. --Bryce (talk | contribs) 00:57, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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