Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2012 January 19

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 18 January	20 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 delete. Stifle (talk) 17:28, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Western Roads Policing Unit

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

Was prodded "Does not appear to exist except as several separate units of various different police forces.", but Googling for "Western Roads Policing Unit" got about 7,690 results, so enough people seem to believe that this police unit exists and may look in Wikipedia to find about it. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 23:26, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Yes, and the results it produces suggest that there are at least three units with this name, none of which are remotely notable as they are each individual sub-units of separate police forces. ninety:one 02:40, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If so, replace it by a disambig page? If it is deleted, then the links to it from pages Barker Crossing and Western Mobile Support Group need to be changed. Western Mobile Support Group redirects to Western Roads Policing Unit. Would someone who knows more than me about these British police units please comment? Anthony Appleyard (talk) 07:11, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The Unit is a geographical division of a police force's Roads Policing Unit, which in turn is a section of the force's Operations department (or similar names). There appear to be at least three such separate units. The reference in the article Barker Crossing should become a link to Cumbria_Constabulary#Specialist_Departments. Disambiguation would be logical but for the scale - there are likely to be a large number of police units with similar names across the UK and those names change with considerable regularity. A problem with creating disambigs on this scale is that it would imply the Units to which it linked existed, without any references. I think they might just get a little trivial, especially as they would only ever link to subsections of other pages. Not a bad idea though, what do others think? ninety:one 17:04, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wales-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:42, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:42, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. —Necrothesp (talk) 14:29, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Replace with disambiguation page. As it stands, not enough context to understand what this is supposed to be referring to. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 18:11, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Disambiguation could be useful, as the name could refer to any of three or four units, but a redirect to Road Policing Unit would probably be better, particularly if the unit is not mentioned in the force's article. Where a unit is mentioned in another article (such as Barker Crossing), the name of the force would usually be mentioned and linked separately. Cumbria seems to be the only force that has had a Western Mobile Support Group, but again the choice of redirect target depends on whether the information is in the article. Peter E. James (talk) 01:10, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both this article and Western Mobile Support Group. The article says that it is is in Wales. The references to Cumbria and to the Barker Crossing are thus irrelevant. Whatever this article is about, it will be an operational subgroup of one of the Welsh police forces. I would say "merge", but there is really too little to be worth merging, and until the force in question is identified, we would not know where to merge it. Redirecting both to Road Policing Unit might be a viable option, but I still think it better to delete it and let some one start again when they can provide more than a stub on it. Peterkingiron (talk) 11:30, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The article passes neither V nor N. Blue Rasberry (talk) 13:16, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Deleted speedily by User:Oldelpaso under criteria G4 - Recreation of a page that was deleted per a deletion discussion. (Non-admin closure). Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 00:09, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

World Goalgetter

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

Previous incarnation of this article - Top goalscorer the world as classified by the World Federation of the history of football and statistics (IFFHS) - was deleted by PROD in December 2011, and has now been recreated by the same editor. The original concerns remain - this is WP:OR of the highest order. No such award exists, and it is certainly not notable. Giant Snowman 21:49, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 21:50, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - seems it was taken to AfD (by me no less!) under a third name, at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/IFFHS World's Top Goal Scorer of the Year. This has now been G4ed so can an admin please close this. Thanks, Giant Snowman 22:25, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Michig (talk) 20:04, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

BeSweet

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

I found no notability. This software fails WP:N. SL93 (talk) 21:39, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:40, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No notability stated or found. No references provided. Not sure what the external links to information about the wider doom9.net domain, on which the official site is hosted, are meant to provide. AFAICT, they help demonstrate the non-notability of the subject as BeSweet doesn't register in popular search terms. Pit-yacker (talk) 00:47, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I would suggest moving it to Gordian Knot (software) (according to WikiProject Software To Do List entry) for further development of the article. It might be considered of historical significance, though at the peak of relevance it was hard to find any info about it outside Doom9's forums. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 09:57, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - lacks coverage in reliable sources to establish notability. -- Whpq (talk) 16:32, 24 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 Salvation Mountain;. Stifle (talk) 17:29, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Leonard Knight

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

Largely unsourced, overly promotional, should be merged with Salvation Mountain, or deleted. Sven Manguard Wha? 21:18, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:39, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:39, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Salvation Mountain; a large portion of his article really isn't necessary and despite a large amount of Google hits, he hasn't done much outside of that one work and preaching Christianity. SarahStierch (talk) 22:10, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand the real reasons why the nominators want to delete the section on Leonard Knight. I was reading other articles about Slab City, California and Leonard Knight's name was mentioned in most of the other articles I read. I wanted to read more about Leonard Knight and went to wikipedia where I found his article. I do not believe it should be deleted. It should be linked to the other sections that the nominators mention.

Whether you believe Salvation Mountain is a worthwhile creation, one must concede that it is a large undertaking that appears to have been created and built by Leonard Knight over a period of more than a decade. In my humble opinion, anyone, who spends more than a decade of their life creating a gigantic work of art or whatever you want to call it, deserves an article in wikipedia. When one reads about a creation of such a large scale, it is human nature to want to know more about its creator and perhaps glean why someone would spend so much time on something or what drives them on the project.

Based upon information from other website and newspaper articles about Slab City, I wonder if the nominators are residents of Slab City who have a disagreement or dispute with Leonard Knight, or are perhaps jealous of his article.

I would think that nominations for deletion should be very specific as to what facts are incorrect or "overly promotional." I find it odd that a website devoted to providing information would delete anything based upon vague complaints that an article is largely unsourced, overly promotional or a "large portion of his article really isn't necessary."

I think it would be better for the nominators to either edit the article appropriately or move on to something else. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Grenville01 (talk • contribs) 17:21, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, and then make a redirect A redirect is needed, but this is a promotional article that should not remain in the article history. DGG ( talk ) 19:33, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unsourced information is not allowed on Wikipedia and almost the entire article is unsourced. What is there does not indicate notability by Wikipedia's inclusion standards at WP:N. The reference and a sentence or two could be merged to Salvation Mountain. Blue Rasberry (talk) 13:19, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete as vandalism. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 10:26, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Awks as forks

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

Non-notable neologism. Wikipedia is not for things made up one day. Contested PROD. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 21:10, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete with extreme prejudice! Why can't there be a speedy criterion for hokum such as this? WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 21:27, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Also incoherent gibberish. --Lambiam 21:50, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This article has so many things going wrong with it that I don't even know where to begin in justifying my deletion discussion. Neologism, non-neutral point of view, potential COI, and most importantly this doesn't come up with any sources what so ever on a search. I'd almost say that this would count as a vandalism page under G3. In any case, it a painfully obvious delete.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 09:29, 20 January 2012 (UTC)tokyogirl79[reply]

Comment. I'm going to go ahead and nominate this for G3 since this looks more and more like it's a hoax or vandalism. I can't see where anyone has used it other than the one person who created the article.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 09:34, 20 January 2012 (UTC)tokyogirl79[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Stifle (talk) 17:32, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

British Schools Karting Championship

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

After a notability tag was placed on this article over a year ago, nobody have done anything to prove the article's notability for junior sporting series, hence making it as notable as a interschool cross country event. As national as it may be, but there are more lesser level club and historic racing series that is as notable through reliable third party coverages and I tried to look for it myself and still nothing other than mentions in karting venues and other listing that is not considered to be reliable third party sources. Not forgetting that anybody can set up a national school event these days providing that got a business plan and access to government and sponsorship handouts.

If anybody can prove that this organisation is notable, I may change my mind.

I am also nominating the following related pages because as well for the same reason as just one local newspaper article doesn't save this article from being nominated :

British Universities Karting Championship (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL) Donnie Park (talk) 17:34, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:17, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete completely lacking reliable sources. LibStar (talk) 06:41, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The statement above in the !vote to delete, which appears to be about both nominations, as these topics "completely lacking reliable sources" appears to be somewhat exaggerated. Clicking on the Google news link on the find sources template for the "British Schools Karting Championship" nomination clearly indicates that there is coverage in reliable sources for this topic, with 25 hits. The results include coverage in many different newspaper sources. The issue is about whether or not significant coverage exists in reliable, third-party sources. Northamerica1000^(talk) 14:01, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep British Schools Karting Championship – Topic meets WP:GNG, per the availability of reliable sources. These are not just "passing mentions", although the coverage in The Telegraph is succinct:

Streatfield, Emma (November 26, 2008). "Karting challenge for pupils". Swindon Advertiser. Retrieved January 11, 2012. {{cite web}}: External link in |publisher= (help); Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)
"Trio in super show". Cotswold Journal. April 10, 2009. Retrieved January 11, 2012. {{cite web}}: External link in |publisher= (help); Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)
Davies, Gareth A. (March 2, 2007). "Teenagers want more facilities". The Telegraph. Retrieved January 11, 2012. {{cite web}}: External link in |publisher= (help); Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)

—Northamerica1000^(talk) 14:37, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep NA1k has uncovered siginficant coverage in 3rd party reliable sources raising this article up to the levels of WP:GNG RadioFan (talk) 18:11, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have considered the nomination for British Schools Karting Championship to be withdrawn as there are already proof that I couldn't find and that decision if final. But the other must stay, this is until reliable third party sources could be found. Donnie Park (talk) 18:44, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Important Note - The nominator (directly above this note) has withdrawn their deletion nomination for the British Schools Karting Championship article.

—The British Universities Karting Championship remains nominated for deletion in this AfD discussion. Northamerica1000^(talk) 03:03, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{Let's talk}_{about my edits?} 19:55, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Michig (talk) 20:09, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Destined Universal

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

Non-notable musician. Citations are all either primary sources or non-reliable internet blogs. "Notable" project ("Legendary: A Decade of Stacie Orrico") consist of little more than a series of YouTube videos. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 19:54, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:37, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No coverage in reliable sources. -- Whpq (talk) 16:38, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 00:10, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Gettysburg Battlefield. Those that opine for deletion , along with others that offer alternatives other than deletion, recommend merging of the Gettysburg examples to Gettysburg Battlefield, so I'll redirect the article, and what's worth merging can be done from the history, of course ensuring the content is attributed appropriately. (non-admin closure) Steven Zhang ^{Join the DR army!} 00:08, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Cope Truss

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

This appears to be a WP:COATRACK increasing yet again the number of Gettysburg articles courtesy User:Target for Today. Searching in Google books for the phrase gives zero hits; regular Google search appears to hit only Wiki mirrors, but in any case books should document such a technological innovation considering that Cope built these things a century ago. All evidence suggests that these are conventional steel towers of the period. The information on the Gettysburg examples could be moved to Gettysburg Battlefield. Mangoe (talk) 19:49, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I looked in the article and throughout the various tower articles and can't find any evidence supporting your claim "All evidence suggests that these are conventional steel towers of the period." And the citations clearly say this design was indeed by Emmor Cope as opposed to a previous design of or before 1895. Lake Woodhouse in Denver (talk) 19:02, 26 January 2012 (UTC) Comment struck as sockpuppet of User:Target for Today, who is currently indefinitely blocked. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:40, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:36, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:36, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No reason why this can't be included on the Gettysburg Battlefield article. Wild Wolf (talk) 22:34, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/Merge to Gettysburg Battlefield. Don't see why this has to be a seperate article. Mad Man American (talk) 22:46, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/Merge to Gettysburg Battlefield. 76.7.231.130 (talk) 16:26, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Gettysburg Battlefield. The article fails to explain why this is significant or why it needs a seperate article. 67.239.100.244 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 17:10, 23 January 2012 (UTC).[reply]
Strong Keep Well documented article that needs improvements in tone. --DThomsen8 (talk) 16:49, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The towers themselves are well-documented, but there is no documentation at all towards the existence of something called a "Cope truss". Mangoe (talk) 17:01, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

**Clearly this design exists, as towers using the design exist and are part of the Historic American Engineering Record. Is a dispute about a notable article's name a reason for deleting an article? Lake Woodhouse in Denver (talk) 19:02, 26 January 2012 (UTC) Comment struck as sockpuppet of User:Target for Today, who is currently indefinitely blocked. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:40, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Rename and Merge with all the related Gettysburg towers (Big Round Top Observation Tower Foundation Ruin and Culp's Hill Observation Tower) per WP:SNOWFLAKE (we should document the similarities and differences among the towers). The documentation available is more than enough to prove notability for the towers - even if the name "Cope truss" itself is not used, the content is well sourced and notable and thus should be kept. (Nomination argument is that the cope truss as a technological innovation is a COATRACK, but the article actual content -the coverage of the towers construction in newspapers of the era- is not "a biased subject"). Diego (talk) 11:25, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- ~~To what name do you want the Cope truss article renamed (kept)? Lake Woodhouse in Denver (talk) 19:02, 26 January 2012 (UTC)~~ Comment struck as sockpuppet of User:Target for Today, who is currently indefinitely blocked. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:40, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Topic clearly meets the notability requirements as for all the other truss articles (which are also named for the designer), and this design is historically notable (all of the remaining towers are historic distric contributing structures, and the ruins for one are likewise honored as a HDCS.) Lake Woodhouse in Denver (talk) 19:02, 26 January 2012 (UTC) Comment struck as sockpuppet of User:Target for Today, who is currently indefinitely blocked. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:42, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- .... except that there's no such thing as a Cope truss, as far as any research into the matter shows. Mangoe (talk) 19:09, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I thought the article clearly states that the towers actually do exist, so why are you claiming there's "no such thing" -- do you instead mean no such name "Cope truss"? But they are indeed trusses and placing the designer's name before the word "truss" is an accurate use of an adjective and valid, right? (hopefully you're not going to dispute that). Lake Woodhouse in Denver (talk) 19:47, 26 January 2012 (UTC) Comment struck as sockpuppet of User:Target for Today, who is currently indefinitely blocked. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:40, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - The article starts by saying that "The Cope Truss is a tall square frustum of four structural cells." This is just a claim the article author made up, as far as I can tell. There is no evidence that anyone else ever called this sort of stay-braced tower a "Cope truss"; indeed, on examination the photo in the article does not show the pattern of bracing described in the article, but instead shows a very conventional pattern of cross bracing typical of lightly-built steel and iron towers. The thousands of fire lookout towers built in the US used roughly the same construction, with varying numbers of stages and stiff rather than tensile members for the crossbraces. The history of the towers is perhaps worthy of recording, in my opinion most properly as a small subsection of the article on the battlefield as a whole; however the claim that there is some notability to the construction of the towers is not borne out by research. Mangoe (talk) 20:25, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Stifle (talk) 17:33, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Stephanie Just Memorial Fund

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

Deprodded by article creator. I still cannot find any significant coverage in WP:RS to indicate that this organization, however worthy, meets WP:NGO. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:49, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:50, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. —Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:52, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:53, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, I wasn't able to find anything to support notability. PK T(alk) 22:34, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No coverage in reliable sources. -- Whpq (talk) 16:40, 24 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. Rlendog (talk) 21:11, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Phillip Thomas

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:N. Although there are many sources listed for this article, Thomas does not appear to have significant coverage. Eagles 24/7 (C) 19:13, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete While there are sources here, most of them are not reliable, and those that are mention the subject in passing, rather than him being the focus of the articles. Nwlaw63 (talk) 19:48, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:23, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:23, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. When reading through the flurry, it is someone selling his services as a ghostwriter and purveyor of baclofen. JFW | T@lk 21:11, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does not pass WP:SCHOLAR; Google Scholar search under several variations of his name finds nothing, and his bibliography in the article is unremarkable. He is occasionally quoted in the media [1] but I found no significant coverage ABOUT him so he does not pass WP:BIO. --MelanieN (talk) 15:36, 24 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 and redirect to 2011 Bangladesh coup d'état attempt per discussion below. Nominator withdrew nomination. (non-admin closure) Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 12:34, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

2012 Bangladesh uprising

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

This is a single event, the only source is a BBC news article. Wikipedia is not news; this event needs more time than this to establish notability. Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 18:59, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

the event is very notable because bangladesh has one of the worlds largest military (over 1m soldiers) and look for example at the 2011 2011 Democratic Republic of the Congo coup d'état attempt article Heonsi (talk) 19:05, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The size of the army has nothing do with notability – a fish in the Atlantic is not notable just because it lives in one of the world's largest oceans. As for the Congo uprising, that actually happened. There was an actual coup attempt in which several people were killed. This is just a single news story about some officers who wanted to start an uprising but never did. The end. Not notable. Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 19:16, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It's not an uprising, but a failed coup attempt. The article should be renamed and kept, fleshed out also, if the news holds up. Maybe premature writing it, but if the news holds up, the article should be kept. Pseudofusulina (talk) 19:26, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:17, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:17, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:17, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep: The event is significant ... this is the first attempt by Islamic terrorists to infiltrate the military and incite them into a coup. (previous coups in Bangladesh were not religiously motivated). I'm saying weak keep since the event is very recent and we need more information as the event unfolds. --Ragib (talk) 04:31, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notable event, easily meets WP:GNG. I've added a list of sources to the article's talkpage that will hopefully be used in expansion. Lugnuts (talk) 08:11, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article needs a new title (as no 'uprising' took place), but this seems to be notable based on the available coverage. Nick-D (talk) 23:01, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep With the extra sources provided, it seems clear that this is a notable event in the history of Bangladesh. Needs a better title, though. First Light (talk) 17:16, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

*Comment i consider that the article name should stay , a coup is a form of rebellion/revolution . we dont have to use some OR standard of "insert year,insert country coup d'état attempt" , and in any case this disscusion is also about the article "2012 Bangladesh uprising" if anyone wants some other title , create a diffrent article and discuss it there Heonsi (talk) 19:44, 21 January 2012 (UTC) This user is a sockpuppet of a banned user, any and all remarks from them should be discounted. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:57, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

- Do you have references that it was an uprising? All the news sources describe it as an attempted coup d'état, not an uprising. As an alternative, you could source and write an article about an uprising in Bangladesh and use this name. Pseudofusulina (talk) 19:50, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - e/c A second article with a different title for the same subject would be a WP:CONTENTFORK. If you read how articles should be named (WP:Article titles), you'll see that first you try to find what reliable sources are calling the subject. Every single reliable source that I checked (BBC, Time, Huffpost, Telegraph) called it a "coup" attempt. Onle one of them ever used the word "uprising", and only a single time (the Time article, which also used the term "coup" 11 times). So the article title should be something like 2012 Bangladesh coup attempt. That's what it was, that's what reliable sources are calling it, that's how WP:Article titles determines it ("article titles are based on what the subject is called in reliable sources"). This title is also by necessity descriptive, but "coup" needs to be in that description. First Light (talk) 19:58, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - I agree. This article is about a coup attempt. Pseudofusulina (talk) 20:08, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Of all the options here, I think the proposed renaming is the best one. This event, whatever it is, certainly isn't an uprising, as nothing has actually taken place. To characterise it as a "coup attempt" is definitely more accurate. Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 20:11, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

First , of all your opinion is already noted as "delete this article" so what you say subsquently is completly irrelavant , Secondly show some respect , it was i who created this article Heonsi (talk) 20:33, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Just because someone !voted to delete the article doesn't mean they can't give an opinion on the title of the article in case it is kept. Also, keep WP:OWN in mind - it doesn't matter who creates an article (said by someone who has created a few hundred). We are all equal editors. Wikipedia is a collaboration. First Light (talk) 20:50, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The coup attempt actually took place in December 2011, it was only recently reported. So the title should be 2011 Bangladesh coup attempt. First Light (talk) 20:51, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep If more info comes out on this then keep. 76.7.231.130 (talk) 16:28, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Administrator note The user who created this article is a WP:SOCK of a banned user. As such, any edit made by them may be reverted on sight regardless of its quality. However, since other users have endeavored in good faith to improve this article it will not be speedy deleted and the AFD will determine it's fate without considering the quality of the banned users arguments here. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:57, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it would seem a bit pointless to delete it on a technicality. The article has improved since its creation (although still needs work) and def. took place. I've also moved it to the correct year and title, per the attempted coups in the 2010s category. Thanks. Lugnuts (talk) 07:53, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Withdraw. Since the banned author is now out of the picture, and I agree fully with the new title, I'm withdrawing this nomination. Regards Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 12:33, 23 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 08:02, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Narrative IED

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

WP:NEOLOGISM - Google search on "Narrative IED" shows only 30 results (not all applicable), one gnews hit. Clearly not a term in common use. MikeWazowski (talk) 18:24, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. If this is a type of rumor, it can be covered in the rumor article (and it appears that the writer of this article has already attempted to place it there.) --Nat Gertler (talk) 18:28, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This term doesn't refer to a type of rumor, but to a phenomenon caused by rumors that applies to strategic communication campaigns. The reason that there are not enough google hits is that it is a recent term. Either way, that shouldn't be a reason to delete an article, that means that only fairly popular terms have their space in Wikipedia user: Efibla— Efibla (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

I take it from your writing that it's a type of rumor ("A narrative IED is a rumor that can explode and thus degrade a strategic communication campaign.") Wikipedia covers WP:NOTABLE topics, and if the type of rumor under discussion is being particularly noted, it doesn't seem to be by using this term (as the Google results show), so at the very least this is a poor name for the article. It doesn't appear to be used in scholarly work (Google scholar finds no actual uses). Your sources appear to be Bernardi's book, and citations that only specify them as the term Bernardi uses (Bernardi views rumors as "narrative IEDs"; "narrative IEDs," as Bernardi calls them); if this is a Bernardi-only terminology which hasn't caught on (as it seems), then its invention is best covered in the article on Benardi. A rumor that spreads and has negative consequences does not seem particularly outside of the realm of normal rumor. --Nat Gertler (talk) 20:25, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:36, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I understand these remarks and therefore will move the article to the rumor as strategic communication entry section. Thanks User:Efibla — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.212.73.67 (talk) 18:37, 20 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 A roads in Zone 2 of the Great Britain numbering scheme. Stifle (talk) 17:33, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A2199 road

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

The article has no reliable sources. Similarly numbered local roads in the area do not have articles either, as previous consensus suggested that they did not pass the general notability guidelines. Ritchie333 (talk) 17:39, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:07, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:08, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - an A road would be at the same level as an American state highway, and general consensus is that they are notable - yes, it's WP:OTHERSTUFF, but in this case it's comparable. If that's not acceptable, though, a Redirect to A roads in Zone 2 of the Great Britain numbering scheme would be logical. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:02, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In the discussion I linked to above, the opinion was that A roads were equivalent to Federal Highways, but as I have mentioned in the discussion, this is misleading as a road's number does not reflect its source and level of funding, and general importance. Furthermore, a google search for this road returned a bunch of self-referencing hits, so there's still the issue of reliable sources to resolve. --Ritchie333 (talk) 08:53, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to A roads in Zone 2 of the Great Britain numbering scheme. The road numbered A2199 is roughly 3.5 kilometres (2.2 mi) long, which is very short compared even to other 4-digit A roads. On 1:50000 Ordnance Survey maps it's marked in magenta, indicating a "main road" (on OS maps, the importance of a road is denoted by colour: the scale is blue-green-magenta-orange-yellow-white). About the only important fact about this road is that for much of its length it forms part of the boundary between Lambeth and Southwark - a fact not mentioned in the article. --Redrose64 (talk) 14:21, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

These details added. Peterkingiron (talk) 12:25, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect prt Redrose64. Simply south...... having large explosions for 5 years 16:27, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- This is harmless little stub on a short first-class road. It is not claimed to be a trunk road (maintianed by Highways Agency, which would be the equivalent (I presume) of a Federal Highway. I presume that it is a significant road locally. I am doubtful wheher we need articles on all the B-class roads, but despite the four-digit number, I think we should allow them on most A-class roads, unless they are exceptionally short and can be dealt with as a spur of another one (i.e. merged into another article). Peterkingiron (talk) 12:20, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have delinked South Croxted Road and Croxted Road, which redirect back to this article. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:14, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You can try arguing WP:NOHARM on this, but the fact is there are probably very few people who know this road by its number. That could be argued as WP:IDONTKNOWIT, but the start of the road here doesn't appear to have any sign bearing the number, neither does its end here. I don't think anyone's going to search for "A2199 road". --Ritchie333 (talk) 13:56, 23 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?} 13:28, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Jharoda Kalan

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

Very limited content and context. At the moment the article not serving a purpose. Callanecc (talk) 17:25, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:23, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This is a verifiable village and all villages are notable. The article was easy to fix by checking the reference supplied and a quick Google search. • Gene93k (talk) 01:33, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The nom has not given a valid reason to bring this up for AfD. Short articles are what stub notices are for. Verified village. --Oakshade (talk) 16:43, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There's no reason given for deletion, this nomination should just be closed. Pseudofusulina (talk) 19:29, 21 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. Stifle (talk) 17:35, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dumb Blondes

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

Maybe there's a music guru around who can verify some of the claims in the article or otherwise prove notability. I could not: delete as a non-notable band, though I gladly stand corrected. Drmies (talk) 22:54, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:53, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. The band does appear to claim a notable member, Phil Collen, though it is pretty tenuous I must admit. This Def Leppard fan site confirms the earlier band and at least one recorded and released song. Phil Collen's profile on Def Leppard's official website also mentions the band in his profile. This google search proves the band existed, and there are some youtube links in there which confirm most of the songs. --Jayron32 06:39, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Tenuous indeed... I could live with a redirect to Phil Collen. What do you say? Drmies (talk) 16:25, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Meh. I'm 50/50. Per WP:PRESERVE, someone worked on putting this together (I organized it and wikified it, but the text belongs to someone else). Let's just see how this AFD plays out and see what other people's perspective is on it. --Jayron32 19:05, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - Well, I tried improving but the only thing I could find was some mention in GBooks about them having played a show in 1980 with some other band. Drmies (talk) 00:55, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Reluctant, but still a delete. I put some effort into searching, since it really looked like someone put some effort into writing the article, but they just aren't notable and I don't see a case for WP:IAR here. :( Livit⇑^Eh?/_What? 18:19, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Moderately successful - They released a single and a compilation on Fresh Records (UK) in 1980. They meet WP:BAND 6 and are close on 5. I have added a cite to the article. The Steve 07:49, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The source added is discogs.com, which is the IMDB of the music world: user generated content and not at all a WP:RS. WP:BAND states that meeting one of the criteria may be an indication of notability, and personally I think 6 is the weakest of the whole pack... If these guys had been covered just two times in some kind of legit music magazine of the era, then they'd be notable—but since most of those magazines are defunct and/or don't have archives on the web, we're stuck with waiting for someone to write an article based on the 25 year old stack of magazines in their attic. :( Livit⇑^Eh?/_What? 21:51, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So, just out of idle curiosity, is there a site or sites that are more reliable than discogs? this one? here? I mean, is there really any doubt that they had a record with Fresh? The Steve 06:08, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

lol. i'd just confirm it to my satifaction[2][3] then cite either record as a primary source. 86.44.31.213 (talk) 19:13, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

We're getting off track here—I'd be happy to continue the dissuasion in User Talk: space, for example—but the problem with discogs and 45cat are exactly the same as the problem with IMDB. The problem with these kinds of sites is that they are built from direct user contributions and have no editorial oversight—the same reason, by the way, that WIkipedia itself is not considered a reliable source and is banned from citation in most school papers. To illustrate the problem, there is absolutely nothing preventing me from going to discogs or 45cat and creating a new entry about the band Livitup and the Death Rays, with a full listing of the 30 albums we have released over the last 20 years. Of course it's all a lie, but how do we know? It's an illustration of the "I read it on the Internet, it must be true" problem. I doubt their entries on these two sites is part of a conspiracy to launch a massive hoax upon the musical world, but I don't know. Now if they were reviewed in the L.A. Times, or any of the print magazines of the era, or Billboard, or really any reliable source, then there would be no question at all. Livit⇑^Eh?/_What? 19:41, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and the record itself could be used as a reliable source, but it does nothing to prove notability. Anyone with enough cash and vanity can have a record pressed. I also forgot to provide a couple links in my comments above: WP:IMDB for that discussion. From WP:N " if no reliable third-party sources can be found on a topic, then it should not have a separate article." The album itself is a reliable source, but it is a first-party source (a.k.a. primary source) and so it doesn't do anything to meet the notability requirements. The rest of the offered sources are not reliable, so we are left with no reliable, third-party sources to affirm notability. Sorry... :( Livit⇑^Eh?/_What? 19:47, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Steve's point, which you've missed thru being somewhat robotic re discogs, is that having releases on Fresh Records goes towards notability via WP:BAND 5. 86.44.31.213 (talk) 20:28, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No, I haven't missed that point. I get that point, and my rebuttal to that point is that WP:BAND states that meeting one or more of the criteria may indicate notability, and the WP:GNG is still the overriding guideline. This band is so notable that it has been mentioned in reliable, third-party sources exactly zero times. Participants in this discussion have offered non-reliable or first-party sources to prove notability (which is really the only issue here), and I have tried to explain why the offered sources do not do anything to prove notability. Honestly, except for 2 sentences about the 6 songs recorded and one sentence about the single released by the band, the entire article covers what the members did before and after their association with this act. If it's worth mentioning, it's worth mentioning in the artist's articles, not in a standalone article. Livit⇑^Eh?/_What? 21:19, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I must have misread you when you said "it does nothing to prove notability. Anyone with enough cash and vanity can have a record pressed." Re "overriding", WP:N explicitly says either/or. Point 5 likely exists for this very scenario, where, as you say, there's probably a bunch of coverage in somebody's attic. 86.44.31.213 (talk) 22:03, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think we are going in circles here. I'm not even convinced that releasing a "double A-side single" or having those two same songs included on a compilation album featuring multiple artists from the label match the definition of #5—"released two or more albums". Beyond that, the fact that these two releases are virtually invisible 25 years later should indicate the notability of the band. But I think you get what I am saying too... I can agree to disagree in this case. :) Livit⇑^Eh?/_What? 23:45, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No, technically they don't. Its a single, and on one album. That's why I said they were close on 5. I'm giving them the benefit of the doubt with other things like hits on youtube, so long ago that you won't find any web articles on them, and that a single back then was a lot harder to get than now. Still, I was hoping that there was a reliable resource for old albums... The Steve 06:33, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So which of us shall kick off the ExtravaSCANza at Kerrang! HQ? :D Livit⇑^Eh?/_What? 13:23, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I was the Bass player Pete Webb throughout both transformations of the band.This is all notable!!, I put it together!, 9 January 2012 (UTC)— Preceding unsigned comment added by Wolfywiki (talk • contribs)

Comment: Just incase the closing admin doesn't notice... the above editor seems to be a WP:SPA with a clear WP:COI. Livit⇑^Eh?/_What? 21:43, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Wifione ^Message 22:29, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As detailed above, more or less per WP:BAND 5 & 6. 86.44.31.213 (talk) 22:22, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'll be the first to say the article needs major work, but I'm working on trying to fix the problems. Gringo300 (talk) 19:40, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{Let's talk}_{about my edits?} 17:13, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Sound nomination, but I am ok keeping this around for awhile to see if it can be improved, or if not, where the usuable content should be moved to. Few bands have been as influential as Def Leppard,[4] so its reasonable to see spinoff articles like this for organizational clarity. See, e.g., The Nosebleeds, the first musical endeavor of Morrissey.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 20:25, 23 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. Stifle (talk) 17:39, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Whippany River Watershed Action Committee

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

This committee is a local committee and really has no other notability than cleaning up a local river. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 03:22, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:39, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:39, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The sources are essentially parochial coverage, and for at least some of them it seems doubtful that they can truly be regarded as independent sources. There is no real evidence of notability. It is clear that the article was created to publicise its subject. The article was created by an account (now blocked) with an unambiguous conflict of interest, and subsequently all the substantive edits have been by a single purpose account, perhaps the same person. JamesBWatson (talk) 12:08, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - See below for independent, third-party reliable sources that cover this topic in detail. Northamerica1000^(talk) 08:59, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (apparent keep comment from article talk p. by contributor--should have been placed here--DGG

The following can be found on the United States Environmental Protection Agency website http://yosemite.epa.gov/opa/admpress.nsf/7144dd430c47561885257018004c77a3/d6165ffef5f792e18525716a005bccfb!OpenDocument on the Whippany River Watershed Action Committee

The Whippany River Watershed Management project was New Jersey’s pilot watershed management project. The Watershed Action Committee is a coalition of citizens and municipalities dedicated to preserving and protecting the land and water resources within the watershed and achieving the goals of the watershed management plan. Among their accomplishments is the creation of model ordinances that have been adopted by watershed municipalities to address nonpoint source pollution. They have also undertaken a project to achieve a 58% reduction in fecal coliform to meet the Total Maximum Daily Load, or TMDL, established by the plan. Through education and outreach they are engaging the entire watershed community in the effort to restore and protect its valuable water resources. (LeonardC (talk) 04:25, 6 January 2012 (UTC))[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, causa sui (talk) 20:50, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

'Keep - Significant coverage in reliable sources; topic passes WP:GNG:

NJ.com - River group celebrates watershed moment at Morristown's Willow Hall
The Record - Eco-friendly projects showcased

Additionally, there are many paywalled sources available: [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10].

—Northamerica1000^(talk) 07:29, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{Let's talk}_{about my edits?} 17:08, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge & Redirect I checked the article's references, and most of them are about the Whippany River, and not about the Whippany River Watershed Action Committee. There are two references, in the Star Ledger and Daily Record specifically discussing WRWAC, but they appear to be more like meeting notices than real news. A subsequent Google search I did found few independent references. I do not wish to denigrate any work that WRWAC has done, but I believe that the topic does not meet Wikipedia's notability standards. I think that a sentence or two could be added to the Whippany River article about WRWAC. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dwainwr123 (talk • contribs) 04:38, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
'Keep – Additional coverage in reliable sources as per Wikipedia notability standards: United States Environmental Protection Agency, New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection and Rutgers University.

http://www.rci.rutgers.edu/~cecomm/whippany.pdf The 69-square-mile watershed was chosen as a kind of “test case”—to coordinate and integrate regulatory and non-regulatory water resource programs in New Jersey to a greater degree than had ever been attempted in the past. Several years into the Project, a mayors' committee specifically for local municipal officials was formed and has since evolved into the current Whippany River Watershed Action Committee. Another link from Rutgers University, http://morris.njaes.rutgers.edu/environment/Stormwater/Maintenance%20manual%20Dinesh.pdf “The Whippany River Watershed Action Committee. First Regional Stormwater Management Plan and now First Residential Cluster Rain Garden Project.” Both projects were the first of their kind in New Jersey. In an article titled “Beware Water Quality When Wet” from the Star-Ledger, New Jersey’s largest newspaper, link http://wrwac.org/news/SL_study_part1.jpg “Because of their successes, they (Whippany River Watershed Action Committee) became a model for watershed management in the state,” said Larry Baier who directs the DEP’s watershed management division.” The meeting notice mentioned in same article was to announce the study findings conducted by the Whippany River Watershed Action Committee. (LeonardC (talk) 03:02, 28 January 2012 (UTC))[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. The later comments have established her notability as a bodyguard. Der yck C. 22:04, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Danielle Solange Curzon

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

The only sourced claim of notability is being the only child of a viscount and notability is not inherited. Her junior equestrian success would probably not be notable, even if sourced, since junior championships are rarely considered notable (unless accompanied by success as an adult). The kickboxing claim's notability would depend on the event (and sources). Jakejr (talk) 06:44, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Jakejr (talk) 06:44, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:47, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I've been tossing around the idea of nominating this, and had just never gotten around to it... Per the nom, notability is not inherited, and junior equestrian success is not notable (in general, equestrians become notable through participating in the Olympics or World Equestrian Games, or continued success at the next lowest level (European Championships, etc)). The kickboxing thing could bring notability, but I have not been able to find out the level of this event (was it really the world championships for the entire sport of kickboxing? or just one association? or just one group who decided to put on an event and call it a world championships?), whether or not she participated, and what her level of success was. After a couple of web searches, I have been able to find no significant coverage in reliable, third-party sources. Dana boomer (talk) 19:30, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - See sources below, several reliable sources that address the topic in detail are available. Northamerica1000^(talk) 14:08, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There are no sourced claims of notability, nor did I find any when I searched. I think Dana's comments pretty much sum things up for this AfD. Astudent0 (talk) 19:33, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - See sources below, several reliable sources that address the topic in detail are available. Northamerica1000^(talk) 14:07, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notable as the first female Mixed Martial Arts referee in the United Kingdom. Searching for "Danielle Curzon" has found significant coverage in reliable third party sources including The Sun (UK)[11] and these [12][13][14][15]. Scottdrink (talk) 21:25, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I don't see grounds for notability. There is nothing notable about being a female bodyguard, even if it's for famous people (who else hires a bodyguard?)--see WP:NOTINHERITED. That's what most of her coverage is about. I don't think being an MMA referee is grounds for notability, either. Finally, I found she won a silver at the WUMA world championships. WUMA is a primarily British martial arts organization and her silver medal came from coming in second out of two entries (she lost to another English fighter). Papaursa (talk) 00:27, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - See sources below, several reliable sources that address the topic in detail are available. Northamerica1000^(talk) 14:07, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I had thought this was borderline until I saw the coverage in the Sun - this is the coverage required of WP:GNG. St Anselm (talk) 08:50, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This topic passes WP:GNG, per significant coverage in reliable sources:

The Sun article
Corriere Della Sera article
Daily Echo article
Yahoo News article and interview

—Northamerica1000^(talk) 14:03, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I found nothing to show she's notable as an equestrian, kickboxer, or bodyguard. As far as the sources go: the Corriere Della article is just a reprint of the Sun article, the Daily Echo article is a local newspaper about a martial artist teaching classes (hardly unusual), the Yahoo article is from the "Yahoo! Contributor Network, where users like you are published on Yahoo! every day"--in other words it's more of a blog than a reliable source. Also, that's the only place that claims she's the first female MMA ref in the UK--she just claims to be the first to work for the UCMMA. The Sun article is a valid source, although I'm not over the moon about calling Murdoch's tabloid a "reliable source." Mdtemp (talk) 16:06, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Actually, the the Corriere Della article is not a reprint of the Sun article whatsoever. The articles contain entirely different text. The Corriere Della article mentions The Sun coverage as part of it's context, and makes mention of a Sun webpage and uses a quote from The Sun article. Otherwise, there is significant information in the Corriere Della article that is not present whatsoever in The Sun article. Northamerica1000^(talk) 08:12, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Significant coverage in reliable sources has been found. WP:GNG has been met. Dream Focus 22:33, 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, causa sui (talk) 20:56, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep While she may not be notable for her other fields, Sun article proves WP:GNG for her as a bodyguard. User:A412 (Talk * C) 23:55, 10 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?} 17:08, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. Per GNG.--Epeefleche (talk) 18:04, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - if she's happy being notable as Bouncer to the Stars, I guess that's WP:GNG satisfied. Classy? No. In the popular press? Yes. Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:59, 19 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 08:02, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Pashe gaaru

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

Unsourced biography of a living person. No notability whatsoever. bender235 (talk) 16:28, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:18, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:19, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No coverage in reliable sources. -- Whpq (talk) 17:17, 24 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?} 13:26, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Rohmert's law

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

Totally unsourced article. Appears like a piece of original research that someone wrote. Stedrick (talk) 16:22, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Deletion is completely unwarranted, though it may need to be moved to a new name (I get more hits from "Rohmert curve"). The concept is a fairly important one in human biomechanics / ergonomics, and one that deserves expansion, not deletion. The original source is https://doi.org/10.1007%2FBF00698869 and is unfortunately in German, but the paper has been cited nearly 200 times, with loads of subsequent work. Sadly, I don't have the time to fix all the articles in the biomechanics purview, and this one is on the periphery of my personal area of knowledge, but I've added the banner for the relevant Wikiproject, and hopefully I or someone else will get to it in time. HCA (talk) 16:57, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:18, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There are plenty of reliable references. I've added one to the article. -- 202.124.75.126 (talk) 22:26, 20 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. Very borderline, but giving this a chance. In the absence of improvement within the next couple of months I would expect it will be renominated. Stifle (talk) 17:40, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

King Kong Company

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

I've been listening to these guys on Youtube and they're great but unfortunately I'm finding nothing on gnews but they seem to be popular on the blogs, forums, and "MySfacebook". My google-fu isn't that strong so if somebody finds something I missed then I will be glad to withdraw this nomination. Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:05, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 15:18, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I found no reliable sources. SL93 (talk) 03:26, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I work with the band. I've been tempted to update this article because its factually incorrect and is missing a lot of the more recent details. I haven't done so due to my connection with the band, and someone seems to be doing it sporadically. My argument against deleting this page would be the fact they won an Irish Music TV award in 2011 ahead of some much better known Irish acts Villagers, Lisa Hannigan and Ham Sandwich they also have an album and tour due in the next couple of months. They've been largely ignored by Dublin/Music media, and so, outside of blogs, their 11 Youtube hosted music videos (all released in the last year), Facebook page, I don't think I can provide links to anything other than local newspapers. If you think this is enough to keep the page, I have no problem updating it, or providing more up to date details and links. --Mailmrluke (talk) 14:05, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Edits by parties connected with the subject are discouraged but any links to newspaper reports about this band would be helpful. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 14:14, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Do you know of any pre-2000 coverage in print sources like Hot Press and so on? Seems likely as a result of the Fanning session but very little of that kind of thing has made it online. 86.44.31.213 (talk) 15:01, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Let me look into the pre 2000 coverage, I'll have to check with the band and come back to you. --Mailmrluke (talk) 16:42, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete - per A7, so tagged. ukexpat (talk) 14:46, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Declined, there is a credible assertion of significance in the article and here in the AFD. (Irish Music TV awards). Let the AFD run its course. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 14:57, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep examples of local newspaper coverage are [16] [17]. There's also regional coverage: [18]. the awards mentioned above are fairly significant, being in association with IMRO, the irish music rights organization. Come to think of it, the Fanning session seems to meet point 12 of wp:band. These sessions were of the same format & stature of the Peel sessions in England. 86.44.31.213 (talk) 15:01, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 04:22, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep - Topic appears to meet WP:GNG, per:

"IMTV Winners King Kong Company Play Live Show!". Waterford-today.ie. January 11, 2012. Retrieved January 12, 2012. {{cite web}}: External link in |publisher= (help); Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)
"IMTV win for King Kong Co". The Munster Express. December 8th, 2011. Retrieved January 12, 2012. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |date= (help); External link in |publisher= (help); Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)
"King Kong Company: 10 Years & Waiting". Waterford-today.ie. February 9, 2011. Retrieved January 12, 2012. {{cite web}}: External link in |publisher= (help); Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)
"King Kong Company's I Pop". Waterford-today.ie. May 4, 2011. Retrieved January 12, 2012. {{cite web}}: External link in |publisher= (help); Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)

—Northamerica1000^(talk) 08:33, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Has coverage, and won notable awards. Dream Focus 09:08, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Week Delete Notability of awards is questionable. 3 articles in the local paper doesn't impress me as "significant coverage"--RadioFan (talk) 18:07, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I don't consider a few mentions in small town papers to be enough coverage --Guerillero | My Talk 07:18, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{Let's talk}_{about my edits?} 16:21, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No significant coverage and local press coverage does not for it for me, so fails WP:CLUB and WP:GNG Mt king ^(edits) 02:50, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but biased Just to clarify again, I am biased having worked with the band. I agree the local papers may not be enough, but the Dave Fanning session and the IMTV award are significant - the latter being mentioned on many other Wikipedia profiles and being supported by IMRO. Last Sunday they were interviewed on Irish radio station Beat 102-103. They spoke about Wikipedia, not about this discussion, but about how someone setting this page up was the spark that got them back together. They also spoke about their history going back to 1995/1996 and the year long project they have just completed where they release a new music video every month. The podcast of the show is available here. I would suggest, if the page is kept that page is edited to make it factually correct, as I pointed out already there are several errors in its current format. --Mailmrluke (talk) 19:28, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Meets WP:GNG per above provided sources and WP:MUSIC and WP:BIO per award-wins. Cavarrone (talk) 13:06, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Bryce (talk | contribs) 02:41, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Tolgus Mount

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

This is not an article, just a simple dictionary definition with no sources, and does not provide information a typical article of the type should, such as area and population. It provides no information other than a definition. There is no proof it is notable or if it even exists to begin with. If more information can be found later, it can be easily recreated. Stedrick (talk) 16:13, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep "There is no proof it is notable or if it even exists to begin with. " Eh, did you actually google/google book search it before nominating? Nobody should be be permitted to take an article to AFD without assessing its notability first by looking for sources. Its takes 5 seconds to validate something. Notable articles will always be notable so deleting them is pretty pointless. Most articles on wikipedia need expansion of some sort.♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:07, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Speedy Keep per Dr. Blofeld. Even if the article just said "Tolgus Mount sucks" I'd still vote "keep" (and obviously improve). A classic example of why WP:BEFORE should be a requirement. --Oakshade (talk) 07:26, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Villages are invariably considered to be notable. I fear the nominator needs to brush up on just what a dictionary definition is and the policy for retention of stubs. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:37, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- While I am not quite sure that "village" is the correct term, from my examination of Google maps, it is clear that the location does exist. The name "Tolgus" appears to apply to a rural area adjoining the town of Redruth. Whether the article should be at Tolgus Mount or Tolgus, I am not qualified to judge, not being a local. For the significance of remains there see [19] [20] and [21] - a few of the rsults from a google search against Tolgus Redruth. Peterkingiron (talk) 21:31, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes Tolgus is the rural district area to the northwest of Redruth. The village is split into several dispersed hamlets which include West Tolgus, East Tolgus etc.♦ Dr. Blofeld 21:39, 22 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 one "keep" opinion does not address the concerns raised about this article's inclusion. Sandstein 08:28, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Juneau mayoral election, 2012

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

WP:NOTABILITY Callanecc (talk) 16:06, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WP:VAGUEWAVE, WP:BEFORE, WP:ATD. Please discuss. postdlf (talk) 19:43, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Alaska-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:09, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:10, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This article was intended to be part of a series on U.S. elections in 2012, is referred to in this article, and directly linked to in one of the page's portals. --Lord Bromblemore (talk) 14:02, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Does this mean I need to create Fairbanks North Star Borough mayoral election, 2012? Seriously, let me run through a few things. I spent nearly a full year attempting to make a very important point to people who appeared to be promoting this notion of Levi Johnston's "mayoral candidacy," largely to deaf ears. That being, typically, there is no such thing as open filing for municipal offices in Alaska. There is a specific window, which normally occurs in August, though sometimes in July, for October elections. In Johnston's case, the paperwork he filed was with the Alaska Public Offices Commission, a state agency, which allowed him to be deemed a candidate under state law for the purposes of fundraising. Listen up, because this is very important. That is an entirely different (though related) procedure from filing a declaration of candidacy with the municipality. Johnston's partisans evidently chose to ignore this article, and in particular this quote:
While the field includes a quartet of men and women who have been active in local political circles for years, this year’s election is also notable for one conspicuous absence. After being the first to file a letter of intent to run for mayor last August, former Bristol Palin beau Levi Johnston did not follow through with his official paperwork with the city.
These folks instead chose to rely upon the sources already in the article. It must be some sort of bad karmic joke to expect me to believe that Us Weekly and Entertainment Tonight would qualify as reliable sources for covering an election. Is it "original research" or "making shit up?" You decide. Anyway, before I veer very far off topic, how does this relate to the Juneau election? Well, the filing period for the office is still approximately six months off. No one has filed for the seat yet, obviously. According to the APOC website, no one has filed with them, either. At this point, we're a little premature in creating this article. In other words, come back in six months. I looked at United States elections, 2012. I'm guessing that someone decided that state capitals are "major American cities," because there is a great population disparity between several capitals and other "major American cities" on the list. Juneau's 2010 Census population is 31,275. Consider that in Juneau's case, that includes its entire populated area and a considerable amount of surrounding wilderness. This creates another disparity, as people try to compare Juneau with other American cities, where in many cases most of the population lives in suburbs and not within city limits of the central city. I should once again stop before I go too far off topic. The most glaring problem is that Anchorage is also on that list. Anchorage's election is in early April. According to the Municipal Clerk's office, filing begins on Friday. According to APOC and media reports, incumbent Dan Sullivan and one other candidate have filed with them. There may possibly be others, but APOC's letter of intent form doesn't require the candidate to specify an office. That article is the one that people need to be focusing on building right now. Of course, it doesn't exist yet.RadioKAOS (talk) 12:27, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, single-line substub with no expansion possible for quite some time. When there's action and coverage, we can then look at having an article. Stifle (talk) 17:24, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Without the soapbox this time, real quick and simple: best bet is that it'll be 6½ months before you see an actual declared candidate, as opposed to one "declared" (assumed) by the media or by virtue of APOC filings.RadioKAOS (talk) 17:36, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Back to the soapbox quickly: looks like we already have at least 4 candidates for Anchorage mayor. Is it going to be up to me to create that article?RadioKAOS (talk) 17:54, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Bryce (talk | contribs) 02:42, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Butte potato

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

WP:Notability Callanecc (talk) 16:01, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sources (for example):

USDA American potato journal 1992

BHG Plant Dictionary: Potato

Russet Potato

Charlie Nardozzi. Vegetable Gardening for Dummies. John Wiley, 2009. "This late-season variety is the classic Idaho baking potato. It's a great russeted (has rough, brown-colored skin) baking variety that features 20 percent more protein and 58 percent more vitamin C than other varieties. It's also tolerant of scab disease and late blight." (page 79)

Keep - variety exists and has adequate sources as shown above. Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:13, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organisms-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:11, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Variety exists, references exist in books and in google scholar. Why was this even nominated for deletion? Pseudofusulina (talk) 19:37, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - It establishes notability in the article. Rkitko ^(talk) 19:53, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - For the reasons given above.--Curtis Clark (talk) 22:21, 21 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 Bigg Boss. There is a clear consensus, that a separate article for this season is not yet warranted. (non-admin closure) Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{Let's talk}_{about my edits?} 13:23, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Bigg Boss (Season 6)

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

WP:CRYSTAL & WP:NOTABILITY Callanecc (talk) 15:22, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Bigg Boss. ApprenticeFan ^work 15:24, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I think Bigboss is most popular Indain TV reality show and its media coverage is high. Since the events before the actual show time definitely affect the Biggboss season 6 and zest of them starts building from end of previous season. So article on wikipedia titled Bigg Boss (Season 6) should not be removed. Jpmeena (talk) 17:18, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:30, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:31, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Bigg Boss. -Animeshkulkarni (talk) 17:22, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Crystal. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 17:14, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: WP:CRYSTAL. Merge with Big Boss for now, until speculations and rumors give way to more stable stories. Veryhuman (talk) 18:02, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Bigg Boss --Anoopan (talk) 17:55, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Consensus is that an article is not yet appropriate. Michig (talk) 20:14, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

2012 LKL All-Star Game

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

Breaks Crystal and not news. Spartaz ^Humbug! 14:22, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Doesn't break WP:CRYSTAL necessarily since it is a scheduled sporting event that just hasn't happened yet. Crystal is more for things that have no guarantee they will happen and are more speculative than anything. The LKL All-Star Game isn't speculative. Jrcla2 (talk) 16:51, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:26, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not enough coverage on it yet, but re-creation after it occurs would be okay. Jrcla2 (talk) 16:51, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, nothing to write about it. Stifle (talk) 17:18, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. The delete arguments centred on WP:NOTDICDEF, while keep arguments said it was sourced and met GNG. As Wikipedia has a number of articles on words and phrases, some quite well developed, per Category:Words and phrases, it is unclear what the general consensus is regarding which words and phrases are allowable on Wikipedia, and similarly consensus is not clear in this AfD debate. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 18:01, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Turn in one's grave

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

Wikipedia isn't a dictionary and this is clearly never going to progress beyond dicdef. Spartaz ^Humbug! 14:19, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I absolutely agree with Spartz's comment, the article was created as a dictionary definition and won't progress further. Callanecc (talk) 15:05, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 15:17, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, weakly, per nomination. Unlike some other idioms, this one is fairly self-explanatory. As far as I know there's no folk narrative or historical allusion that goes with it and that's needed to make sense of it or use it intelligently. That kind of detail can turn an article about an idiom into something more than a dictionary definition. If someone finds appropriate material I would be happy to reconsider. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 15:23, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Smerdis. If we can find sources that suggest that the term itself might be a notable topic, then we can consider keeping it. Until then, we should delete per WP:DICTIONARY. I did try a brief search, but couldn't find any sources discussing the term among the mountains of sources that simply use it. Someone more familiar with finding such things might have better luck. If no sources can be found, then we should delete, not transwiki - Wiktionary already has a fine definition of the phrase. — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 15:38, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per my edits. Theres definitely enough substance for an article here. All the phrases which have historical/etymological etc. info surrounding them should be turned into articles. This is only the beginning.--Coin945 (talk) 15:59, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete after moving anything essential to Wiktionary. Origin and examples of usage belong in a dictionary - there's nothing to merit an encyclopedia article here.--Michig (talk) 16:36, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I agree - there still doesn't seem to be anything in the article that indicates that the phrase is encyclopedic, but the recent additions are very welcome and should probably be transwikied. — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 23:54, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Wikipedia is not a dictionary. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 05:19, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:HEY and WP:GNG. Lots of phrases and idioms have articles, and this seems like one of the most notable that ought to be here. It will be useful for our core readership, students, who may not be familiar with its connotation or etymology. Bearian (talk) 01:22, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep meets general notability guidelines and this is an idiom which is useful and garners sufficient public interest. Pass a Method talk 04:40, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per not a dictionary. The secondary sources present are dictionaries, mainly cited as a source of definitions. The non-dictionary sources are primary sources that use the phrase, not analyses of the phrase as a phrase. I believe that there is a place for encyclopedia articles on notable words and phrases, but this ain't one of those. Cnilep (talk) 01:21, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note If Wikipedia were a normal encyclopedia, I would wholeheartedly agree with the deletes... but lets be honest here. Wikipedia has become so much more then that. It is becoming the hub if all knowledge. This information, while maybe not the "best" to include in a encyclopedia, is greatly important to many people and for that reason I think it should be kept.--Coin945 (talk) 18:50, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:WINAD, perhaps shifting anything not already duplicated to Wiktionary. Stifle (talk) 17:14, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, as a phrase with a provable and interesting etymology. Should also be in a dictionary, but that's no reason it shouldn't be here too. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 08:50, 30 January 2012 (UTC).[reply]

note Thats an interesting analogy. I also thought about dictionary term rules, but then realized there are several similar articles on wikipedia so therefore thought it would be okay. Pass a Method talk 11:25, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Consensus is that the coverage found which mentions the company is insufficient to satisfy the general notability guideline. Michig (talk) 20:22, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Paratus Communications

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

Not notable. (Has the usual industry awards they all have.) Philafrenzy (talk) 22:57, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:54, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ Weak Keep - Topic ~~meets~~ appears to just meet WP:GNG:

Thu, 31 Aug 2006 (2006-08-31). "Pick a perfect PR partner | Archive". Marketing Week. Retrieved 2012-01-11.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: numeric names: authors list (link)
19 May 2004, 12:00am (2004-05-19). "Public relations: PR leagues Top 100 - Marketing news". Marketing magazine. Retrieved 2012-01-11.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: numeric names: authors list (link)
"Atalanta rebrands Paisley and wins first London client". The Drum. Retrieved 2012-01-11.
"To capitalise on the peak booking period - (Travel Daily News)". Traveldailynews.com. Retrieved 2012-01-11.
Williams, Christopher (June 19, 2007). "Goodbye ICSTIS, hello PhonePayPlus: Rebrand to beat off premium rate rip-off merchants." The Register.

—Northamerica1000^(talk) 16:56, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{Let's talk}_{about my edits?} 20:32, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Sources added do not come close to significant coverage of the firm. Fails WP:GNG. Mt king ^(edits) 21:08, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The first one you found does count as significant coverage. The second one says of them "Paratus is perhaps the best example of the near-instant impact these fledgling companies can have on the industry" and whatnot which I believe counts to their notability. The other links, I don't really see as much to them, but the first two are all that matters here anyway. Dream Focus 00:48, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment A lot of work has gone into beefing-up this article but it still doesn't make the grade. All we really have here is a lot of PR puffery and inherited notability. I still don't see why the firm itself is notable. Philafrenzy (talk) 00:12, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

An assertion of significance is that they created the concept of 'bespoke communications'. Northamerica1000^(talk) 18:15, 20 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?} 14:18, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and salt. A public relations and social media agency, and I shouldn't have to say more. Marketing Week and Marketing Magazine aren't the kind of sources that can really establish significant effects outside the advertising business. The Marketing Week article simply quotes personnel from this business in an unrelated story, and the Marketing Magazine article is a Top 100 list that doesn't make each business listed notable. The kind of business that just shouldn't have a standalone article. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 15:32, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Over thirty edits have been made in an attempt to "rescue" this article but it still doesn't show notability with poor quality tangential coverage, inherited notability and nominations rather than wins for awards which themselves are trivial. You can put lipstick on a pig... Philafrenzy (talk) 11:34, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the article is puffed up to look nice, but coverage is miniscule. Definitely not significant coverage in reliable sources, more like passing mentions and barebones summaries by anonymous authors. Them From Space 02:02, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Kubigula (talk) 16:32, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

JaNEWary

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

I found no significant coverage for this 2012 News Years vote on Disney Channel. SL93 (talk) 03:20, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 17:47, 3 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, Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 19:18, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. When google asks you Did you mean: "JaNUary"?, there is a good chance that info doesn't exist. Crystallballing. Dennis Brown (talk) 19:54, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect and/or merge to Disney Channel#2007 - Present - it exists see this. Rich Farmbrough, 19:13, 13 January 2012 (UTC).[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{Let's talk}_{about my edits?} 14:14, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No significant coverage, no detail in article, no point in keeping it. --DThomsen8 (talk) 22:02, 22 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. (non-admin closure) Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{Let's talk}_{about my edits?} 22:51, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Biesecker Woods

(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) 21:56, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:38, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:49, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep/merge This and other locations at the battle of Gettysburg are documented in numerous works such as Gettysburg: a battlefield guide. Whether they should be split into separate articles or be sections of a larger article is a matter of ordinary editing not deletion per our editing policy. Warden (talk) 11:07, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No notable fighting took place here nor any other event of importance, so fail to see how this is any more notable than any other spot of woods in Pennsylvania. 76.7.231.130 (talk) 01:14, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Many sources mention Biesecker Woods, but I don't find any detailed coverage of it. It seems to lack independent notability: it wasn't a focus of major fighting, or the site of someone's headquarters, or the like. I suspect that if the article were kept, it would never get beyond a minimal stub; that most readers who arrived at it would be following a Wikilink from one of the main Gettysburg articles; and that those readers would be irritated at having followed a link to an article with no additional useful information. Ammodramus (talk) 01:17, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{Let's talk}_{about my edits?} 14:02, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep.~~Keep/Merge. It is identified as a place name by a reliable source. Such gazetteer content is not restricted by WP:N. Tens of thousands of long-existing Wikipedia articles could be deleted by applying WP:N to them in its 2012 form. patsw (talk) 15:48, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I've read several books on Gettysburg and I've never seen any mention of this place in them. Don't see why we need an article on this at all. Mad Man American (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 16:42, 19 January 2012 (UTC).[reply]
Merge as per MarcusBritish. Buckshot06 (talk) 16:58, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - into Gettysburg battlefield. The question here is not whether Wikipedia should discuss Bieseker Woods or not... the issue is whether it should have a stand-alone article devoted to it. Information is best presented in context... the existence of this clump of trees is trivial, except in the context of the civil war battlefield. Placed in the context of the battlefield it is worth mentioning. Blueboar (talk) 16:12, 20 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. (non-admin closure) Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{Let's talk}_{about my edits?} 02:19, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Lohr's Hill

(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) 22:03, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:37, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:47, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep/merge This and other locations at the battle of Gettysburg are documented in numerous works such as Gettysburg: a battlefield guide. Whether they should be split into separate articles or be sections of a larger article is a matter of ordinary editing not deletion per our editing policy. Warden (talk) 11:10, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A single artillery shot from this spot does not make it notable. There must be hundreds of places on the Gettysburg battlefield where artillery fired from, as well as hundreds of places on other Civil War battlefields where a battery fired the first artillery shot of the day. 76.7.231.130 (talk) 01:18, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge – into Gettysburg battlefield or similar. Ma®©usBritish ^[chat] 23:15, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{Let's talk}_{about my edits?} 14:02, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep.~~Keep/Merge. It is identified as a place name by a reliable source. Such gazetteer content is not restricted by WP:N. Tens of thousands of long-existing Wikipedia articles could be deleted by applying WP:N to them in its 2012 form. patsw (talk) 16:01, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I've read several books on Gettysburg and I've never seen this place mentioned at all. Don't see why we need a seperate article on this place. Mad Man American (talk) 16:44, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge I live about 30 miles from the battlefield, and have visited it dozens of times. Never have I recalled the significance (or even existance) of this hill. A mention of it in the Gettysburg battle article is good, but it doesn't need a standalone article. Them From Space 18:33, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - into Gettysburg battlefield. The question here is not whether Wikipedia should discuss this hill or not... the issue is whether it should have a stand-alone article devoted to it. Information is best presented in context... the existence of this hill is trivial, except in the context of the civil war battlefield. Placed in the context of the battlefield it is worth mentioning. Blueboar (talk) 16:10, 20 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. Kubigula (talk) 04:51, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Srilatha Sundararajan

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

article is only promotional, subject fails WP:MUSICBIO and I can't find significant coverage in reliable sources Hekerui (talk) 19:25, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 20:44, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:39, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Nothing on gnews or gbooks. I'm assuming that she doesn't pass the major award criteria by virtue of having been conferred the “Asthana Vidhushi” title by His Holiness Shri Azhagiyasingar of Ahobhila Matt at Pune. Created by an SPA.--Epeefleche (talk) 06:54, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{Let's talk}_{about my edits?} 13:50, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above. Subject lacks notability per the GNG and WP:BIO. Them From Space 02:03, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. This is a WP:BLP currently unverifiable through reliable sources. The notability issue aside, policy mandates its deletion until such time as reliable sources are provided to make the substance of the article even verifiable. Sandstein 08:26, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Tim Truman (musician)

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

I'm not sure that all composers of music for television are inherently notable, and the sources on this article do not meet WP:RS. Prod removed by User:Srobak with the comment, "Undid revision 468802251 by FisherQueen (talk) rather than PROD an article of a noteworthy individual - use the effort to improve it," but I remain unconvinced that this person is notable, so I offer the article to the community for discussion. FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 11:21, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per lack of any WP:RS, I don't know about the inherent notability either but going on sourcing alone there's nothing much. tutterMouse (talk) 14:45, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as he is cited with compositions of over 30 notable movies and television shows at IMDB alone - including theme music and he has written music for other notable recording artists. There are more than a handful of sources to this effect out there (in order to find them you at least have to look) and I will work on improving the article in the coming few days - I do not have the time to do it right now however. It would also serve to better the project if instead of deleting a notable article - try contributing to it. Srobak (talk) 16:04, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Sad. I felt like I was entirely polite at all points when looking at this unpatrolled article- I looked for better sources, used a prod rather than a speedy tag to allow time for others to find better sources, and, when you removed my tag, I contacted you on your talk page first, and only sent it to AfD when your contributions showed that you'd been on-wiki for several hours and seen my message but not responded to it. You, on the other hand, have, I think, failed to assume good faith by assuming that I didn't bother to look for sources, by implying that I am too lazy to improve a weak article, and by putting a {sofixit} template on my talk page instead of communicating clearly with me. Now I feel sad. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 16:30, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - I do not respond to messages, comments or questions at at your behest, nor do I operate or conduct myself on WP according to your schedule. If and when I have the time to dedicate to improving an article through the extensive research and citation necessary I will do so, however - that will not preclude me from halting an unfounded and unnecessary prod/afd until such time at which it can be improved upon. My communication was clear - if you see a problem with an article on WP then work on improving it. No need to unnecessarily detract from it, and certainly not to clutter an afd with over-analytical, non-applicable musings. Srobak (talk) 16:53, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:11, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notability is not inherent, but at a certain point it can be safely presumed. The composer who took over Miami Vice from Jan Hammer and went on to be composer on Melrose Place and Charmed &etc. is probably past that point, though he seems to keep a low profile and had his highest point of notability before the internet age, making sources hard to come by. There is however "World Views", Keyboard, Vol. 15, No. 9, Issue #160, September 1989 (pp. 22–25) and significant detail in the May 1989 Recording Engineer/Producer (p. 38), both regarding Miami Vice. So i'm fine with an article that's verifiable from primary sources in this case, since the subject can be presumed notable. 86.44.31.213 (talk) 23:03, 7 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) 07:14, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I created the article partly motivated by the need to discern between Tim Truman and Timothy Truman (as noted in the article itself) – there is some confusion between the two Trumans around the internet, and I think Wikipedia would be a great place for learning the difference. Jaknudsen (talk) 22:00, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{Let's talk}_{about my edits?} 13:49, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:N and WP:BIO. I can't find significant coverage of him in reliable sources, nor has he impacted his field in a notable way or won any important awards. Them From Space 02:08, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sources were already found above. 89.100.194.85 (talk) 13:03, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy delete (CSD G4: Recreation of a page that was deleted per a deletion discussion). Despite a significant amount of rewriting, and the addition of a superficially impressive looking list of references, the issues which led to the earlier deletion have not been addressed. JamesBWatson (talk) 13:06, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Classic Judaism

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

Delete for the exact same reasons it was deleted first time around, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Classic Judaism: It's a violation of WP:NOR; WP:SYNTH; WP:NEO; WP:NOTMADEUP; WP:NOTSOAPBOX. (Reasoning: 1 This is an intellectually dishonest attempt to carve out a "movement" when none exists, rightly, it should redirect to "Philosophy of the Canadian Yeshiva & Rabbinical School." 2 The article suffers from an identity crisis because it's an admitted "intersection" its author promotes at Canadian Yeshiva & Rabbinical School#Religious philosophy..."The school does not identify itself with any current Jewish denomination. The school aims to capture the principles of Classic, pre-denominational Judaism based on the European Judaism of the 1700s that form the core of authentic halachic practice occupying the congruent region where a sizeable set of principles well within Orthodoxy intersects with a sizeable set of principles within Conservative Judaism." If it is meant as a stalking horse and poster child for the Union for Traditional Judaism, an amalgam of right-wing Conservative rabbis with left-wing Modern Orthodox rabbis, it should say so and maybe redirect there. 3 The article just cherry picks from here and there to make up it's own theme of a new brand of a heretofore unheard of denomination or group. It portrays a philosophical notion and discussion in the guise of an organized body of thought or as some kind of serious "Judaic Ecumenism" when none exists in the real world, see Jewish denominations where there is no such creature as "Classic" or "Classical" Judaism because any denomination of Judaism claims that it's the "Classic brand" while no consensus exists. 4 None of the real citations and "proofs" in this article add up since each and every one of the scholars cited belonged to one or another branch or denomination of Judaism, such as: 5 these that belonged to and/or were ordained by Conservative Judaism: Jacob Neusner, David Novak, Louis Jacobs, Joel Roth, Seymour Siegel, Louis Finkelstein, Robert Gordis and 6 most of the others belong to Orthodox Judaism that opposes the premises of Conservative Judaism, such as Joseph B. Soloveitchik, Emanuel Rackman, Jonathan Sacks, Moshe Koppel, Immanuel Jakobovits, Moses Sofer, J. David Bleich, Eliezer Berkovits, and 7 then their are secular scholars cited and a few others belonging to various Jewish academic circles. But this does not a "Classic Judaism" make. 8 This topic needs to be taken down, re-condensed maybe discussed at WP:TALKJUDAISM and moved into Jewish philosophy maybe, but on its own it literally represents nothing and only confuses. And at best, this article should be a disambiguation page listing all the Jewish movements that think that they are the "Classic" version!) IZAK (talk) 11:02, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. IZAK (talk) 11:14, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Point of order: This is not really a second nomination. The article went through AFD, and the decision was to delete. The author later moved a copy of the article from his userspace into article space, thereby circumventing the mechanism that prevents the recreation of deleted articles. Though the author has considerably expanded on the deleted version, he has done nothing that would change the original deletion decision. I have alerted the deleting admin (Spartaz), and expect that he will redelete the article summarily. --Ravpapa (talk) 11:48, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for clarifying this, in other words you are reporting that User Rabroy (talk · contribs) has violated the procedures of Wikipedia:Deletion review. Let us assume WP:AGF and hope it was due to ignorance on his part. But even with his additional work, as you point out, he has still not obviated the original glaring problems. IZAK (talk) 11:55, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The article seems to be opinion. It's also hard to see the difference between "Classic Judaism" and just plain Judaism. Borock (talk) 11:49, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep' Yes, all the immediate sources in Google seem to relate this concept to Canadian Yeshiva & Rabbinical School, but looking and even a few links in GoogleBooks ([22], [23], [24], [25], [26], [27], [28]) seem to show that this term is at least a valid one, which has been referred to many times in works. A major expansion and rewrite is needed however.--Coin945 (talk) 12:29, 19 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. Despite concern around the scant sources currently in the article, there is consensus around the NYT obituary that the subject is notable, with an additional comment that offline sources are likely in existence. WilliamH (talk) 14:37, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

William Lowell, Jr.

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

Fails WP:BIO. Notable father, no idea why the son would be notable though. Short obituary in the NY Times is the only source (in article, and only one I could find), and offers no further clue. Searching for things like "William Lowell" "Union Bag" gives no useful results[29][30], and neither does "William Lowell" "Six pack carton"[31][32][33]. "Working on the development" of something is not really the same as inventing or patenting something, so his role is unclear, but certainly hasn't been widely commented on, with his obituary as the only source. Fram (talk) 10:44, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:26, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Given that the article was created in 2007, it would not have met the guidelines in effect at that time if it were challenged on WP:N grounds. patsw (talk) 15:34, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A New York Times obituary denotes that a reliable source found them notable of the thousands of people to die that day. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 16:04, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Yep, a single source, not really sufficient to meet the GNG. Fram (talk) 11:00, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as above. Most likely, the sources are below the wikipedia horizon because of time. Not everything old gets digitized where a Google search can pick it up. The NYT likely had sources. Nucleophilic (talk) 06:42, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A 1976 death? That's hardly ancient history. We have no problem finding sources about notable people from a lot earlier, e.g. we can easily show that his father is somewhat notable. The source for the NYT may just as well have been a press release from one of Lowell's former employers, we don't know. Fram (talk) 11:00, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It's a very, very brief obituary and doesn't make any real claim to notability. Clarityfiend (talk) 22:16, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - obits in the Times c. 1976 were not press releases; they were well-researched. Bearian (talk) 01:24, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- "Citation needed" Fram (talk) 09:32, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Bryce (talk | contribs) 02:44, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Shmarya Rosenberg

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

Bio of a media blogger. I do not see this as notable. The RS used in the article mostly are about the topics he blogs rather than him. This leaves one NYT profile as a source. I don't think this is enough to establish notability. Joe407 (talk) 09:31, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Joe407 (talk) 09:35, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions. Joe407 (talk) 09:35, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. Joe407 (talk) 09:35, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So, what do you suggest, to move it to "Failed Messiah"? Ajnem (talk) 13:22, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Article needs cleaning up, but detailed profiles, several years apart, in The New York Times and The Forward (the latter of which was also printed in Ha'aretz[34]), both talking about the person as well as the blog, equals notability. --Arxiloxos (talk) 19:43, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Scope and breadth of coverage justifies notability and merits retention. Alansohn (talk) 20:00, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Enough WP:RS and he's definitely WP:N to prove importance. IZAK (talk) 11:08, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, although I could also live with having it moved to "Failed Messiah", Ajnem (talk) 18:06, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{Let's talk}_{about my edits?} 12:49, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Forest Lake Village Shopping Centre

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

Clearly fails criteria for shopping malls: significant coverage in reliable sources. Till I Go Home (talk) 08:46, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:10, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Shopping malls-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:10, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: A search of the Australian Newspaper database found 161 results for "Forest Lake Village Shopping Centre". References come from South West News (Brisbane, Australia) (128), Courier Mail, The/Sunday Mail, The/QWeekend Magazine (Brisbane, Australia) (24), Southern Star, The (Brisbane, Australia) (3), Ipswich News (Brisbane, Australia) (2), Albert & Logan News (Brisbane, Australia) (1), South-East Queensland Tourism (Brisbane, Australia) (1), Logan West Leader (Brisbane, Australia) (1), Queensland Regional Publications (Australia) (1). This is a number of different publications. Articles deal with several things related to the shopping centre to make it not one event, including an art exhibit by local residents, development issues around the mall, upgrades made to shops in the mall including Target done to the tune of $30 million AUD, and people getting sick at the mall. There are several articles that specifically talk about the mall on its own, that provide substantial coverage of the mall in the article. Mall passes WP:GNG. --LauraHale (talk) 18:29, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm curious as about these references, can you provide links please? Till I Go Home (talk) 00:17, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

These are available on a pay for database that I have access to via my university. Please subscribe. Sadly, not comprehensive as many newspaper are missing and there is nothing on it from pre 2000. --LauraHale (talk) 07:54, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per references from LauraHale. Finding relevant coverage is tricky because the name Forest Lake (much like the suburb itself) is so generic, but as the focal point for that community there are sure to be many, many dead tree sources out there. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 01:30, 21 January 2012 (UTC).[reply]
Keep per the sources found by LauraHale, just because you can't view them online doesn't mean that you can't use them. Bidgee (talk) 08:12, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Actually all three editors who have voted keep above have failed to provide evidence of the mall passing WP:GNG. These references that LauraHale provided are from local newspapers etc. so no GNG threshold has been met. WP:ORG clearly states that "attention solely from local media, or media of limited interest and circulation, is not an indication of notability". And also to Bidgee, never did I say that because that I cannot view them online means that I cannot use them. The discussion here is about the availability of reliable, secondary, independent sources with substantial coverage of the topic, which "Forest Lake Village" clearly does not have. Till I Go Home (talk) 11:55, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The Courier Mail and Sunday Mail are statewide newspapers with some of the highest circulations in Australia. They are not "local newspapers". Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 02:09, 22 January 2012 (UTC).[reply]
  - At this rate they will want international sources, then I challenge them to provide "non-local" sources to other malls they think are notable.... I bet they will have a hard time finding them. As stated in another AfD, this is looking like a campaign to delete articles that a small group of editors don't like. Bidgee (talk) 11:17, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - No one is asking for international sources. How about a source from SMH, news.com.au, Adelaide Now or The Daily Telegraph? As said previously on multiple occasions, local coverage does not help establish notability. See WP:CORPDEPTH. Till I Go Home (talk) 11:38, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      - For fucks sake, Australia isn't like the US. Sources from other sources no doubt exist but are unsearchable (ie: Newsbank, Google News ect) and would need someone to painfully search for them via mirofilm. Please stop over using and abusing a ~~policy~~ guildline in which you have your own interpretation on, WP:GNG is what is used and it doesn't prevent local sources being used for notability. If you don't like WPGNG, go and get it changed via a consensus. Bidgee (talk) 11:54, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        WP:GNG is not the only thing which should be taken into consideration. That is why SNGs are there in the first place, like WP:ORG etc. which brings me to my point that local coverage doesn't make a topic notable. Till I Go Home (talk) 12:09, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        WP:GNG appears to trump it in this argument. There are three keep votes. You aren't really going to make a convincing argument to Australian participants on this article. Perhaps, if your goal is to get us to change our minds, you could try a different approach, spend the money and gain access to Australian sources, and learn more about our wonderful country? :) We wouldn't have this communication problem then, and you could make more compelling arguments. :) --LauraHale (talk)
        Well I do live in "our wonderful country"... (Sydney) but that's OK, this is a discussion and that's the whole point of this AfD, to discuss whether it meets whichever guideline. And FYI, there is no quorum in AfD. :) Till I Go Home (talk) 12:20, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        Well, the discussion bit is getting a bit heated, with what appears to be entrenched positions. :) If you're hoping to change the three keeps to delete, you might want consider a different approach as the current one is not working. I feel it meets WP:GNG. I don't think other notability guidelines trump WP:GNG. You haven't offered me a compelling reason why it should. You haven't convinced me these sources don't work for WP:GNG. Do you have another argument that would change my position? --LauraHale (talk) 12:24, 22 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. Stifle (talk) 17:52, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Allis Karim

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

A Lawyer. Article is a PR piece started in 2008. References are to PR releases or to his firm. Only could find a couple of news articles, but they were about his firm. Says he is the founder of "Lola Waxx Records". The Lola Waxx website and myspace page hasn't been updated since 2009 and it appears they only did one album. Bgwhite (talk) 08:31, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:19, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:20, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom; subject appears nonnotable. Them From Space 01:41, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, something between an advertisement and a resume. Not an encyclopaedic article, at any rate. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 13:40, 28 January 2012 (UTC).[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. with no prejudice against speedy renomination (non-admin closure) Bryce (talk | contribs) 02:44, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Whitechapel Gods

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

Exists, but lacks substantial RS coverage. Zero refs. Tagged for notability and absence of refs for over 2 years. Epeefleche (talk) 06:31, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep There are some refs online, if such sources as "Steampunk Magazine" support notability when they say "one of the most representative works of twenty-first century steampunk currently in print. No other book is as successful as capturing the secondary world of grit, grime, and gilding that the subculture, art, and fashion have suggested." A later book by the author quotes several reviews of"Whitechapel gods:" [35]. Was it ever a best seller within the sci-fi genre? Or the "steampunk" subgenre? Edison (talk) 16:01, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ed. Thanks for your thoughtful post. Do you think that -- given the above -- we have multiple substantial independent RS coverage of it? I'm not sure I see it in what we can verify. Tx.--Epeefleche (talk) 18:11, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:24, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:24, 4 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, Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 23:36, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{Let's talk}_{about my edits?} 08:29, 19 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 arguments that the subject has not received significant coverage in reliable sources have not been countered. Sources showing that the company exists and is licenced to trade do not satisfy the general notability guideline.Michig (talk) 08:31, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Claims Advisory Group

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

No coverage in independent sources other than here, which just gives the basic company information. Googling the company returns their own website and lots of forum threads complaining about cold-calling. The whole article reads like an advertisement, and I would guess that it was written by someone within the company Mahahahaneapneap (talk) 02:24, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:05, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete:Looks like an WP:Vanispamcruftisement, lacks any coverage in reliable sources to pass WP:GNG. Mattg82 (talk) 03:08, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: This is not an article by the company, the author is not acting on behalf of the company, but did use the company to reclaim PPI, which brought about awareness of the services of such companies. Dispute that this is a WP:Vanispamcruftisement, but understand why this appears so. The article has been amended to reference other PPI companies and now references the claims management company WP page. It also now references the Claims Management Services Regulator. It seems to pass WP:GNG as the reliable sources shows the company to be licensed by a UK Government Department licensing them to trade. Will research for more reliable sources to add.

Unsure why cold calling reference is relevant as this is a sales technique it isn't referenced within the article as it is irrelevant to the reclaiming of PPI within the financial services industry and doesn't affect the notability of the page. (Wbay Lass (talk) 13:04, 9 January 2012 (UTC))[reply]

The comment about cold calling is relevant because it's practically the only information about them on Google. According to WP:CORP, "A company (...) is notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in secondary sources. Such sources must be reliable, and independent of the subject." That is not the case for this particular company. Mahahahaneapneap (talk) 23:36, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Unsure how Google is a reliable source, as it searches secondary sources but can't be counted as one. The article as previously stated includes secondary sources. The discussion around Binding RFCs discusses more peoples involvement wherever page disputes occur and this is proposed here. Tempting not to add comments to the Banks page for charging PPI illegally, but that would be personal opinion, however backed up by Google. (Wbay Lass (talk)) —Preceding undated comment added 00:12, 20 January 2012 (UTC).[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Wifione ^Message 22:08, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{Let's talk}_{about my edits?} 08:18, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The independent references in the article do not mention the company at all or even the word "claims" in most cases. Only ref is a directory listing. Google initially seems to show a lot of hits but following through they peter out at under 300. noq (talk) 00:48, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Lacks the coverage needed to etablish notability. -- Whpq (talk) 17:28, 24 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. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 13:39, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Bezu Development Trust

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

Lacks substantial RS coverage. Zero refs. Zero ELs. Tagged for notability since April. Created by an SPA. Epeefleche (talk) 07:43, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:26, 4 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?} 21:14, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{Let's talk}_{about my edits?} 08:17, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete subject doesn't appear notable, per the WP:GNG. Them From Space 01:43, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. with a leave for speedy renomination if desired. (non-admin closure) Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{Let's talk}_{about my edits?} 12:43, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Paligap

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

Totally not notable. Philafrenzy (talk) 17:13, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Subject of articles in RS Ayrshire Post, Glasgow Evening Times etc Tigerboy1966 (talk) 17:35, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:23, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:24, 5 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?} 21:09, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{Let's talk}_{about my edits?} 08:14, 19 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. Stifle (talk) 17:52, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

TLG Communications

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

Not notable. Award won is typical of the industry. Philafrenzy (talk) 23:04, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:59, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ Very Weak Keep - Topic ~~meets~~ may just meet WP:GNG. Here are two sources I've added to the article:

*Acharya, Nupur (2011-06-20). "Infosys, Tata Brands Beat Google and Apple - WSJ.com". Online.wsj.com. Retrieved 2012-01-11.

Acharya, Nupur (2011-06-20). "Infosys, Tata Brands Beat Google and Apple". The Wall Street Journal. Retrieved 2012-01-11. {{cite web}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)

(Fixed URL to The Wall Street Journal link above). Northamerica1000^(talk) 23:05, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The link still only lists part of the article, however, the actual article has more information about TLG Communications than this incomplete page. Northamerica1000^(talk) 23:11, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Update: Here's the complete article for the WSJ link above:

"By NUPUR ACHARYA
MUMBAI -- Infosys Technologies Ltd. and the Tata Group have topped a list of India's leading corporate brands, far ahead of global giants such as Apple Inc., according to a recent report by a London-based company. Indian companies did well in the survey, bagging seven of the top 10 positions, very different from the U.K., where only four local companies made it to the best 10 list in a similar study. The survey, by TLG Communications, identifies what it says are "thought leaders." It defines thought leaders as corporate brands which have the power to change the attitude and behavior of consumers, employees or politicians. One marked absence from the India top 20 is Apple, which topped similar surveys in the U.S. and the U.K. Google India, at third place, is the highest-ranked foreign company, while Apple had to settle for the 40th spot. The TLG index of Thought Leadership said Infosys and Tata are global corporations with significant investments in the U.S. and the U.K. The report added that the index leaders have not only penetrated Western markets, but are also emerging players in high-value sectors, previously a forte of the West. Infosys is India's second-largest software exporter by sales, while the Tata Group has diversified businesses, from making trucks and cars to providing telecommunications services. India's biggest motor manufacturer, Maruti Suzuki India Ltd., is ranked number four, followed by engineering giant Larsen & Toubro Ltd. Placed 10th on the list is automobile major Mahindra Group. The list is the first-ever index of thought leaders conducted in an emerging market by TLG in partnership with market research consultancy GlobeScan.
Respondents to the survey include ministers, directors of blue chip companies and newspaper editors, TLG said."

—Northamerica1000^(talk) 23:17, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Myslewski, Rik (November 25, 2009)."Apple tops Google as UK 'Thought Leader'." The Register.

This article needs more sourcing, some copy-editing, and more inline citations. Northamerica1000^(talk) 16:34, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{Let's talk}_{about my edits?} 20:33, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Sources added do not come close to significant coverage of the firm. Fails WP:GNG Mt king ^(edits) 21:04, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Your link to [36] doesn't work right. Takes you to something else. Anyway, Google news archive search shows results for reliable sources writing entire articles based on their research and explaining who they are and how they do things. Dream Focus 00:43, 14 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?} 08:12, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

See comments above about links. Northamerica1000^(talk) 23:13, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This calls itself a Thought Leadership consultancy. "Thought Leadership" is apparently the latest bullshit phrase for "advertising", and its use in the description of a business automatically qualifies the article for speedy deletion. One alleged source seems to have had a paragraph inserted without a headline about this business, and does not look like a reliable source. PR Week "buzz" awards and the like do not establish significant effects on history, technology, or culture outside the ad business. Removing spam shouldn't be this hard. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 15:44, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, Thought leader is a term for an entity that is recognized for having innovative ideas. Northamerica1000^(talk) 23:27, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep barely notable but has press so keep.LuciferWildCat (talk) 01:01, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Coverage amounts to passing mentions and name-drops, if that. If sources cannot be provided that discuss the subject itself in some level of detail, then the calls to keep do not rest in reality. Tarc (talk) 13:40, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, coverage is trivial and fleeting. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 13:39, 28 January 2012 (UTC).[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. No one, except the nominator, advocated deletion of the article. (non-admin closure) Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{Let's talk}_{about my edits?} 13:17, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Florence MacMoyer

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

fails WP:GNG.Even the text casts doubt of MacMoyer the hereditary keeper is the same person as Florence MacMoyer. Can be merged with Book of Armagh Night of the Big Wind _talk 23:19, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:01, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - An historical subject, with coverage in Dictionary of Ulster Biography, BBC History Archives and a mention in the Belfast Telegraph. Northamerica1000^(talk) 16:15, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{Let's talk}_{about my edits?} 20:33, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{Let's talk}_{about my edits?} 08:12, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or redirect to Book of Armagh. The coverage that I'm finding focuses on his relationship with the book. I haven't found in-depth coverage of his, which is preferred for a biography article. The article can be kept separate if there is enough information about his possession of the book for a splitout from Book of Armagh; if not we should redirect. Them From Space 01:51, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. No one, except the nominator, advocates deletion and article isn't unreferenced anymore. (non-admin closure) Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{Let's talk}_{about my edits?} 12:40, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

TransAsia Gas International

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

No notable and unreferenced. May not even exist as everything is promised for the future. Speculative at best Velella ^{Velella Talk} 20:10, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Arab Emirates-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:42, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:42, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There are enough sources to establish notability. One possible alternative would be also merging into Al-Ghurair Group. Beagel (talk) 22:40, 4 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, Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 19:21, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{Let's talk}_{about my edits?} 08:10, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The article currently has five sources in it. Northamerica1000^(talk) 22:12, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. with no prejudice against speedy renomination (non-admin closure) Bryce (talk | contribs) 02:45, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ganadera Santa Fe de Sollocota

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

This estate appears to be non-notable, due to the paucity of RS coverage. Zero refs as well. Created by a one-edit-only-ever SPA. Tagged for notability for well over 3 years. Epeefleche (talk) 08:18, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Peru-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:21, 3 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, Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 19:19, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{Let's talk}_{about my edits?} 08:09, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 13:01, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fuller Industrial

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

Delete. Non-notable company. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 06:10, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:22, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fuller is notable because it is the only company where the tank and pipe manufacturing and coating/rubber lining are done at the same plant, under the same roof. Also notable is the fact that Fuller is not reserved to "local" jobs and contracts, but rather has an international and global focus. When a business article attempts to argue notability in its text, directly or indirectly, this usually means it isn't notable. Neither these aspects, nor the trade awards and other "recognitions" in the article, turn this business into something you'd expect to find in a general interest encyclopedia. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 16:07, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{Let's talk}_{about my edits?} 08:06, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Maybe worth pointing out that the originator of the page has put their view on Talk:Fuller Industrial. AllyD (talk) 18:16, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. —AllyD (talk) 18:17, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I can't find anything beyond the local media coverage that is referenced in the article, which feels like it falls short of WP:CORPDEPTH demonstration of notability. But having cross-referred this AfD to the Canada Wikiproject, it is possible that someone there will make a persuasive argument for notability. AllyD (talk) 18:21, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 13:00, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A Christian Banned

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

I cannot find sufficient substantial RS support for this album. Searching for the album and the band together, I found only 1 gbooks hit (which was trivial) and 1 gnews hit. The band itself appears notable -- it is in Allmusic -- but I do not believe the album is. Article has zero refs, and has been tagged for that for over 2 years. The article creator was blocked indef 2 years ago for disruptive editing, so he will not be able to participate in this conversation and explain why he thinks the album is notable. Epeefleche (talk) 06:33, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:25, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Only incidental coverage, in one book and one journal article, as the band's debut album. Never charted, no substantive coverage in WP:RS, fails WP:NALBUMS. Yappy2bhere (talk) 19:18, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{Let's talk}_{about my edits?} 08:05, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Found some reviews for this album, including this, but not coverage in reliable sources about this album. Northamerica1000^(talk) 23:33, 19 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?} 12:37, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Jeannette Balou Tchichelle

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

Biography of a living person that doesn't establish any notability. This Google search brings back nothing except copies of the Wiki article. Lugnuts (talk) 20:43, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There is a bit more out there, such as this article on Congolese novelists; a Google Books search also turns up snippet views of coverage in several books on African literature: [37], [38], [39], [40]. However it isn't clear whether these amount to more than passing namecheck/synopses. AllyD (talk) 22:00, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:44, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:44, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:44, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Ally. Yes, I saw those links via Google Books, but nothing more than just listed in an encyclopedia but with nothing more than name and titles. Lugnuts (talk) 08:48, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep - The first item listed by AllyD is likely a brief bio. The second doesn't work for me, and from what I can see of the rest, the formatting of the information indicates they are likely just entries in a bibliography or list. This book has a short bio, and this one also has a short bio. Given these listings in books covering African French literature, I'm inclined towards keep although the sources are weak. -- Whpq (talk) 14:41, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 06:57, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{Let's talk}_{about my edits?} 08:04, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep per the evidence presented by AllyD and Whpq. I agree that this is a borderline case, but mentions in books covering African French literature suggest that this author is not entirely unimportant. --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 10:07, 22 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 Constitution Party (United States). Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 13:37, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Constitution Party of Indiana

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

State affiliate of minor US political party. Article says nothing about the state party other than that it exists, cites no independent sources, gives no indication that state affiliate is notable per WP:ORG. NawlinWiki (talk) 20:46, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Constitution Party (United States). Can't find much of anything in terms of reliable sources that discuss the Indiana branch specifically. Nwlaw63 (talk) 21:06, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Indiana-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:39, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:39, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:40, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I realize full well that I have a minority perspective here, but it is my earnest belief that all political parties, their leaders, and their youth sections regardless of size or ideology are public entities worthy of encyclopedic coverage. This is the sort of thing that encyclopedias SHOULD include. That said, this is as minimal as anything I can recall having seen: essentially the name of the state chairman and a website. A little actual content would be helpful. All the same, I believe this page should be treated like we treat pro baseball players who have played one MLB game, verifiable villages, high schools, roads, rivers, and so forth and should be retained if existence can be verified. Carrite (talk) 00:16, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Nwlaw. This article doesn't provide much information about the state party -- the party supports the national party's platform, its presidential tickets are identical to the national party's presidential tickets, etc. If this party comes to have an impact on state politics that gets covered in reliable independent sources, the article can be re-created at that time. But right now, the most notable things about this party is that it's a branch of the Constitution Party, and it's in Indiana, and that's not enough to warrant a separate article for the state party. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:34, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect, notability is not inherited from being a component of a notable party. This is different from covering all political parties: we're not talking about getting rid of an article about the party as a whole. A good comparison would be the various deletion discussions in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2009 June 18 for small Wikipedias: we should treat Indiana's branch of the Constitution party the same way we treated the Wu Wikipedia and the Friulian Wikipedia. Nyttend (talk) 05:12, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm OK with the redirect as proposed by Nwlaw63. NawlinWiki (talk) 16:15, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Carrite. Some other New York state parties have separate articles. Bearian (talk) 01:12, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 06:58, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment To those voting keep: can you produce abundant reliable sources about the Indiana branch of the party in particular? No one wants to delete the main article about the Constitution party, but that doesn't guarantee an article for each of the 50 states unless there is sufficient reliable sourcing to support it. I couldn't find this sourcing - that's why I voted to delete. Nwlaw63 (talk) 20:53, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{Let's talk}_{about my edits?} 08:03, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

~~Redirect~~ to Constitution Party (United States) Still here, still voting redirect to main aritcle, based on that there appear to exactly zero reliable sources discussing the Indiana branch of the party. Nwlaw63 (talk) 19:57, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment You can't !vote twice. Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{Let's talk}_{about my edits?} 21:51, 19 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. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 13:36, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Champ (mascot)

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

No real content. No references. GrapedApe (talk) 05:12, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:21, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Notability not established. And this "article" had been up for two and a half years. Oh dear.Tigerboy1966 (talk) 19:57, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{Let's talk}_{about my edits?} 08:02, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non-notable, unreferenced subject. Cloudz 679 17:00, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sources provided are either trivial or do not meet the criteria set out at WP:Reliable sources. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 13:36, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Fringemunks

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

Not notable without significant coverage in independent reliable sources. None provided, none found. Prod removed without comment by IP. SummerPhD (talk) 02:24, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:17, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Points for creativity, but I'm unable to find significant coverage in independent reliable sources for this project; does not appear to meet WP:GNG or WP:MUSIC. Gongshow ^Talk 07:32, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{Let's talk}_{about my edits?} 08:01, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Entertaining, but no. As noted above, no coverage in independent reliable sources. Nwlaw63 (talk) 20:02, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Don't delete! The guy who created the Fringemunks has not only got a lot of positive feedback from cast members and producers of the show, he has also interviewed one of the main actors. Most importantly, the team respects his work so much that they created a character in the show after him! (comment by M. Hollander) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.104.113.244 (talk) 08:12, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Don't Delete Kind of confusing what the admins are looking for. It seems like this entry's references are legit, including the first one which cites a mention in a book. Does this artist need to be mentioned by TIME magazine to gain credibility here?

Comment I don't know from 'legit', but I don't see the reliable sourcing here. Blog posts, Tweets, Facebook posts and random podcasts don't qualify. An item needs significant coverage in reliable sources to establish notability. Nwlaw63 (talk) 21:16, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment What about the cited book? See reference 1. Does that not count? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.172.52.26 (talk) 21:40, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - If three sentences -- half a paragraph -- is significant coverage, I'm the pope. - SummerPhD (talk) 01:14, 21 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. Kubigula (talk) 04:36, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Loh Tick Boon

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

This was marked as speedy but I declined to speedily delete it under A7 as it does contain a claim of significance for the subject ("...first Silver Award winner for Defence Science at the Tan Kah Kee Young Inventors' Award...").

However, I would none-the-less expect a snow deletion for notability for a biography. The award received is not well-known or significant and I do not expect there will be any substantial depth of coverage in any given source. RA (talk) 00:21, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:34, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:34, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, award doesn't seem significant, not otherwise notable per WP:BIO. NawlinWiki (talk) 14:31, 3 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) 03:01, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{Let's talk}_{about my edits?} 08:01, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The lack of sources for the award gives credence that it is non-notable. --Ifnord (talk) 01:42, 20 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. Stifle (talk) 17:52, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

City Suite Hotel Beirut Lebanon

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

Zero refs. Paucity of substantial rs coverage. Created by spa. Tagged for notability and lack of refs since April. Epeefleche (talk) 09:52, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lebanon-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:20, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:20, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

question Eppefleche, you say there are a paucity of substantial RSs. That usually means few, but I suppose you mean there are none. However, what if anything did you find, so nobody has to duplicate your work? DGG ( talk ) 23:51, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

By paucity, I mean "dearth". In conducting my wp:before search, I haven't seen any substantial RS coverage in my searches under gnews, and the most promising gbooks search doesn't quite reveal what the book says -- though otherwise, I don't see substantial RS coverage there as well. A regular google search reveals some sites, but it is not clear to me that they are what we consider RSs -- they tend to be travel sites and the like that are not IMHO RSs. But editors should by no means rely on my searches, especially in cases such as this one where there are many ways to do the search (I searched, for example, for "City Suite Hotel" and Lebanon, rather than the automatically suggested search, and one could run sundry searches).--Epeefleche (talk) 00:05, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable. Google News and Google Books found absolutely nothing under "City Suite Hotel" Lebanon. --MelanieN (talk) 02:55, 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, causa sui (talk) 21:00, 10 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?} 07:56, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, looks like it might be a nice place to stay, but not all that notable. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 13:34, 28 January 2012 (UTC).[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 13:00, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Network centrics

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

Speedy declined. Created by a couple of SPAs, may be a plug for someone's book, putative fast-growing "discipline" has no meaningful relevant returns on Google Books, and a Google search turns up a company Web site with this name. Offered reference book doesn't even use this phrase according to Google Books. Another one of the "Hurray for the Internet" variety of nebulous buzzword-speak. It's impossible to discern from this article what its intended subject matter would be and what a suitable direction for expansion would be; this is a neologism with no usage. --Wtshymanski (talk) 21:36, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:43, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete If it is the emerging discipline, recreate after it has emerged. It is pure vapor/ hot air now. History2007 (talk) 14:55, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{Let's talk}_{about my edits?} 07:56, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Patent nonsense: an 'emerging' and marvellously unspecific way to make all your computer networks work better, by chanting a stream of glittering generalities at them: the emerging discipline of applying and enhancing networking and computing concepts and implementation technologies in a variety of social, business, content distribution, and communication domains involving interactions amongst the domain entities. Network Centrics acts as a catalytic agent resulting in significant improvements in the definition, modeling, comprehension, performance, and effectivity associated with these interactions. This topic has gained importance because of increasing connectivity at individual, corporate, and government levels. Network Centrics is supported by a sustained growth of Internet in conjunction with continued advances in efficient computing algorithms, cost-effective data-persistence solutions, and high-performance data network options that can now be leveraged in a variety of domains. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 15:53, 19 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 no other way this discussion can be closed, despite the apparent "meatpuppet convention". (non-admin closure) Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{Let's talk}_{about my edits?} 12:34, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew A. Jacono

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

non notable Droliver (talk) 18:28, 31 December 2011 (UTC) This is nominally a vanity entry of a non-notable surgeon in our field. Droliver (talk) 18:28, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:38, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:39, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - This looks like the best of the mass nominations of plastic surgeons. Smells like a vanity piece. But I'm O-for-the-rest-of-the-day on this genre of nomination and out of gas and will leave it at that. Carrite (talk) 00:49, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Agree, this is a vanity piece. The subject does not appear to qualify under either WP:ACADEMIC (he has a moderate number of publications, but he is always one of a whole string of authors) or general notability. --MelanieN (talk) 03:32, 5 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, —Tom Morris (talk) 20:55, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is a biography of the reconstructive surgeon featured on "Facing Trauma", a medical documentary broadcasted on both the Discovery Fit and Health Network and the Oprah Winfrey Network. Being featured on a nationally-broadcasted television program itself should be justification for a Wikipedia page for the surgeon. There are several other TV doctors with their own Wikipedia entries: Jan Garavaglia (Dr.G Medical Examiner) and Laura Berman (In the Bedroom with Dr. Laura Berman) are two examples. Not sure why this doctor's page should be removed given those examples. Grasshopper200 (talk) 15:51, 11 January 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Grasshopper200 (talk • contribs) — Grasshopper200 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Keep -I think we lost sight of the forest for the trees. The entire point of having a bio on Dr. Jacono is so that TV viewers can find more info on the plastic surgeon who is featured on "Facing Trauma". His bio is similar to other TV plastic surgeon biographies such as Dr. Rey and Dr. Kotler (Dr. 90210), which have been listed for quite some time. BlueLotus85 (talk) 01:30, 12 January 2012 (UTC)— BlueLotus85 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Keep -Dr. Jacono is heavily sought out for his work which was featured on the new show Facing Trauma on Discovery Fit & Health, not solely the work he does at his practice. If this were a “vanity post” there would be more information included about his own surgery center and would not include all other relevant endeavors.BeautyChick82384 (talk) 16:55, 13 January 2012 (UTC) — BeautyChick82384 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Keep -Not only is Dr. Jacono a renowned facial plastic and reconstructive surgeon, but he has volunteered his time and skills to various charities to help those in need. The basis of his charity work is the inspiration for his show, Facing Trauma. His page not only talks about him, but also delves into the various organizations he works with, making it a great resource.Musicmaven607 (talk) 17:34, 13 January 2012 (UTC) — Musicmaven607 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Keep -Dr. Jacono is one of the few philanthropic leaders in his field. His page is informative about not only his career but the organizations he volunteers with. It also includes information in his show, a resource that is helpful for those wanting to learn more about Facing Trauma.StaceyBrown1969 (talk) 17:42, 13 January 2012 (UTC) — StaceyBrown1969 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Um, guys, not to be mean or anything, but: Welcome to Wikipedia. These pages aren't a vote, so adding a bunch of comments from "different" users isn't helpful. Everybody here knows that user accounts are free and don't even require you to supply an e-mail address. So when the experienced editors see a string of comments from several brand-new accounts, we pretty much assume that it's one human trying his best to game the system. It doesn't work, and it regularly backfires, because sometimes the people making the final decision assume that your efforts to "trick" them mean that you believe there's no good reason to keep the article.
If you want to keep this bio around, the single most helpful thing you can do is to type up the bibliographic citations for WP:Independent sources that talk about this person. The key word there is "independent": it's got to be something like the local newspaper or a magazine run by someone unconnected to him, not his own website or the TV show that he works for. Good luck, WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:21, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I have opened an SPI case regarding these users. Those interested can view it at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Grasshopper200. Chris the Paleontologist (talk ⋅ contribs) 17:42, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

O.K., let's try the following:

1. Healing From Domestic Violence, Parade, August 2, 2009 http://www.parade.com/news/intelligence-report/archive/090802-healing-from-domestic-violence.html 2. Erasing the scars of abuse, Newsday, December 15, 2007 http://www.newsday.com/news/erasing-the-scars-of-abuse-1.522563 3. Ghana orphan finds hope in N.Y.C., NYDailNews.com June 26, 2007 http://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/queens/ghana-orphan-finds-hope-n-y-article-1.225393 4. N.y. Surgeon Repairs Faces Of Domestic Abuse Sun-Sentinel, December 25, 2005 http://articles.sun-sentinel.com/2005-12-25/news/0512240275_1_domestic-violence-face-melissa 5. Corrective Surgery, Can Bad Plastic Surgery Be Fixed? About.com, August 15th 2008 http://plasticsurgery.about.com/od/beforesurgery/a/corrective.htm 6. New “MADE” Technique is Revolutionizing the Facelift, Haute Living, November 11, 2011 http://www.hauteliving.com/luxury-guide/dr-andrew-jacono/ 7. Andrew A. Jacono, MD, FACS, injects humanity into his innovative facial cosmetic techniques, Plastic Surgery Practice, November 2007. http://www.plasticsurgerypractice.com/issues/articles/2007-11_01.asp 8. “Facing Trauma”: Restoring hope for violence victims through plastic surgery, Realself.com, February 19, 2011 http://www.realself.com/blog/facing-trauma-jacono 9. Facial Reconstruction After Skin Cancer Surgery, About.com, July 8, 2008 http://plasticsurgery.about.com/od/reconstructiveprocedures/a/skin_cancer.htm — Preceding unsigned comment added by OffshrEddy (talk • contribs) 17:38, 14 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?} 07:55, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

weak keep but gut the fluff out of the article. This has serious NPOV issues and I wonder what the criteria is to qualify as a "humanitarian". Article is bordering on needing a complete rewrite. There are enough sources, although the press release junk could be deleted. As a side note, why does this AFD look like a meatpuppet convention? Dennis Brown (talk) 13:04, 21 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 18:24, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

2011–12 VCU Rams men's ice hockey club

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

DIII college club hockey is not notable for an individual article. In addition, the article contains no independent, verifiable sources. Bhockey10 (talk) 04:08, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. Bhockey10 (talk) 04:08, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:41, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No claim of notability. Patken4 (talk) 21:51, 10 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?} 07:53, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Individual team seasons of D3 are not notable. Looking at the article it actually mentions that its for air hockey.....which makes it even less notable. -DJSasso (talk) 15:56, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The "air" hockey mention appears to have been vandalism or a peculiar mistake; the EL refers to an ice hockey team.--Epeefleche (talk) 19:50, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Djsasso. - Cloudz 679 16:54, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{Let's talk}_{about my edits?} 12:25, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

CanLII

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

As an article, it feels a bit spammy - but I don't think it's quite enough to G11 the article. As an institution, however, I'm not sure if notability can be taken with what's present. A quick Google search doesn't turn up anything usable for the article. So submitted. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 06:41, 19 January 2012 (UTC) Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 06:41, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Seems notable to me, not mainly as an institution, but as a project (for providing free access to Canadian Law). Here are a few links: [41], [42], [43], [44]. I'm not sure if all of them are usable in the article, but I guess someone with more background knowledge on the subject can find more info about this subject. Razvan Socol (talk) 06:54, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:16, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:16, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Agree that the quality of the article would benefit from some attention, but its notability as either an institution or a project is plainly evident just from links. The internal WP links and Google Scholar results alone demonstrate the degree to which others rely on the information presented at the host site. Razvan Socol has identified a handful of links,and google results (scholar or otherwise) show a wide variety of academic, government and private sites pointing back to its content. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lawtalker11 (talk • contribs) 01:06, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

-sorry, i didn't sign my comment. I'm new to this. Still figuring out how all the buttons work!Lawtalker11 (talk) 01:09, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I oppose the deletion of this article. I do not understand why the nominator brought this article to AfD instead of proposing its merger into Free Access to Law Movement. Because it is never going to be deleted on notability grounds alone while the parent article, to which it could be redirected, continues to exist. James500 (talk) 02:32, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, see, e.g., [45], [46], [47] and [48], as well as those cited by Razvan Socol. TJRC (talk) 23:29, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. TJRC (talk) 23:36, 20 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. There is a clear consensus, that a separate article for this battle isn't warranted. (non-admin closure) Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{Let's talk}_{about my edits?} 12:23, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Excelsior Field

(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) 22:07, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:38, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:48, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep/merge This and other locations at the battle of Gettysburg are documented in numerous works such as Gettysburg: a battlefield guide. Whether they should be split into separate articles or be sections of a larger article is a matter of ordinary editing not deletion per our editing policy. Warden (talk) 11:09, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Being fought over by two or three regiments does not make this notable enough, since there were dozens of other places on the Gettysburg battlefield (and several hundred Civil War battlefields for that matter) which were fought over by two or three regiments. 76.7.231.130 (talk) 01:16, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - meets all the same notability criteria identified here. Target for Today (talk) 20:06, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Bryce (talk | contribs) 06:05, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete/Merge to Gettysburg Battlefield. Agree with User:76.7.231.130. Every tiny bit of the battlefield doesn't need a special article to its own. Unless the article creator can prove that the posession of this field was vital to the outcome of the battle, this article is not necessary. Mad Man American (talk) 22:51, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Gettysburg Battlefield. Similar observations as to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anderson's assault. No need to get into this much detail. 67.239.100.244 (talk) 17:15, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Gettysburg Battlefield. 198.252.15.202 (talk) 19:08, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A properly documented location on the battlefield, with guidance for modern visitors to the field. --DThomsen8 (talk) 22:35, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. There is consensus that deletion isn't required, however it's not clear, that a separate article is warranted or not. A merge discussion can take place at the article talk page (if necessary). (non-admin closure) Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{Let's talk}_{about my edits?} 12:19, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Blocher's Run

(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) 21:38, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:38, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:49, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep/merge This and other locations at the battle of Gettysburg are documented in numerous works such as Gettysburg: a battlefield guide. Whether they should be split into separate articles or be sections of a larger article is a matter of ordinary editing not deletion per our editing policy. Warden (talk) 11:08, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep In the context of streams, we've been through this before and it's been established that every stream is notable, provided that there are references. Gjs238 (talk) 15:59, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. Although the stream wasn't the focus of major fighting, the cover that it and its woods provided seems to have been of some tactical significance. However, that should be included in Battle of Gettysburg, First Day; it's not enough to sustain a free-standing article. The hydrological and geographic information can be left out, as irrelevant to whatever independent notability the watercourse may possess. Ammodramus (talk) 01:32, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - As a geological feature, this historically significant stream is worthy of its own article. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:39, 18 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Bryce (talk | contribs) 06:04, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral My main interest when it comes to whether a short article should be deleted is if there is more to write about. Did this stream pose any tactical importance during the famous battle? Is it discussed in any independent work? Mr. Anon 515 06:18, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- I urge the nominator, in the strongest possible terms, to hold back from ever considering making another nomination for deletion, unless they learn how to do a web search first, to determine whether or not WP:Reliable sources cover the topic of the article. Just a few seconds showed me RS existed. I added three references. Geo Swan (talk) 06:37, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:BEFORE should have been done... --Bryce (talk | contribs) 11:43, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep.~~Keep/Merge. It is identified as a place name by a reliable source. Such gazetteer content is not restricted by WP:N. Tens of thousands of long-existing Wikipedia articles could be deleted by applying WP:N to them in its 2012 form. patsw (talk) 17:24, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to something like List of geographic features at Gettysburg. The article is short, and the only way to grow it is to talk about it relative to the battle itself, which I'm sure is already duplicated elsewhere. It is still a searchable term , and thus a merge with redirect to such a list (providing a kind of glossary for the reader) could keep all the text and sourcing already there as needed. In contrast to patsw's comment, it is not that WP:N and a gazeteer function conflict; in reality, it is more that we allow populated places (recognized by governments) to stay because there's a presumption that people living in that place can ultimately provide sources for that place; for localized geographic features, that can likely never occur, and hence there's no automatic allowance. We still serve the gazetteer function by leaving the searchable redirect behind, of course. --MASEM (t) 18:49, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. When writing lack of notability do you mean lack of importance to the Battle of Gettysburg or something else? — Preceding unsigned comment added by patsw (talk • contribs)
- For me, it's "lack of notability per WP:N" - there is not enough significant coverage from secondary sources to explain why this needs a separate article. It doesn't matter if it is "important", because notability is not about importance. --MASEM (t) 20:47, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I wanted to know from the nominator (or other Delete voters) if it is a problem with "significant coverage" or with the "importance" (or "significance") of the place. I think the coverage provided by the references is significant enough -- is there a dispute that the text is not supported by the cites? I also want to understand the application of principle here. For example, Barlow Knoll was not nominated and yet has the substantially the same references. patsw (talk) 22:33, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I nominated this article due to the importance/significance of the place: I have read a couple dozen of books and articles on the battle and in none of these books this place is not even mentioned as playing any kind of role in the battle. Wild Wolf (talk) 23:11, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

But another editor found books which do mention the place and created the article and met the threshold of significant coverage with cites. The article doesn't make a claim that it played a significant role in the battle. patsw (talk) 23:38, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wild Wolf, Patsw raises a very good point. We all accept that you have a special knowkedge of Gettysburg, and you honestly thought there were no references to support an article. However, although I am not an expert on Gettysburg, I did find some references. So, did you consider modifying your position, now that you know references do exist?
One of those references desrribed the role of Blocker's Run in four separate sections. Let me be frank. As I read those passages, and those in the other references, I thought several paragraphs could be added to the article, reflecting the role the references said the stream played in the battle. I considered trying to add that paragraph myself. I didn't however, as in order to do so I would need to learn more about Gettysburg. I am not an American. I'd rather an American, or someone with an expertise in Gettysburg did that expansion.
Since you do have that expertise in Gettysburg, if it hasn't already occurred to you, may I suggest you seem to be the ideal person, to read those passages, and use your expertise to desribe the stream's role. Geo Swan (talk) 04:56, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I see that it is referenced in several works. However, I was questioning wheter this particular stream is notable enough to have a stand-alone article. From what I've looked up, at most only minor skirmishing took place along it for only a brief period of time. This skirmishing does not meet the Wikipedia:Notability (events)#Lasting effects standards as I understand it. The other reasoned I questioned it was that I failed to see how this is a signigicant geographical feature, even at a local or historical level. Wild Wolf (talk) 19:35, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge - into Gettysburg battlefield or similar. The question here is not whether Wikipedia should discuss this stream or not... the issue is whether it should have a stand-alone article devoted to it. Information is always best when presented in context... the existence of this stream is trivial, except in the context of the civil war battlefield. Placed in the context of the battlefield it is worth mentioning. Blueboar (talk) 16:15, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Gettysburg Battlefield. Agree with Blueboar and also see my comment on Excelsior Field above. Unles ownership this stream was vital to the outcome of the battle or is a major geographical feature of Pennsylvania (like the Susquehanna River), it should be merged. Mad Man American (talk) 22:55, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is a part of the gazetteer, good factoring is a valuable skill for an editor, somewhere we have gotten lost in non-essentials by claiming that articles must be capable of growing, or that it is a good idea to force simple factorable ideas into a confounded context. Unscintillating (talk) 04:03, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I strongly agree with Unscintillating. Once Wild Wolf, or someone else with an interest in the Battle of Gettysburg, incorporates what the references say about the stream, the article will be about four paragraphs long. That is plenty, provided there are WP:RS -- and there are RS.
  So, why shouldn't the info about Blocher's Run be incorporated ino an article about the Geography of the battle? This suggestion exposes several misunderstandings of what makes the wikipedia powerful:
  1. clicking on a link is faster than scrolling around a big omnibus article.
  2. when a reader sees a link to, let's say Blocher's Run, or Garrison Creek, they are offered a choice. Do they want to go read about the stream, or keeping reading the context that surrounds the link? Merging strips this choice from our readers. This is a bad thing.
  3. We should all take advantage of our watchlists. A reader could be interested in Blocher'r Run, but not the battle, or the other landmarks. So long as there is a separate aricle a reader can have just the topic they are interested in on their watchlist. But if the article is merged most of the hits on their watchlist will be irrelevant to them. This is a bad thing.
  4. We should all take advantage of the "what links here" button. So long as articles are focussed on just one topic this button is useful. But when articlkes stqrt talking about muliple topics the usefulness of the "what links here" button is very seriously eroded.
  5. Lots of merges are disasters. It is pretty frequent that no merging takes place after a merge oonclusion. It is pretty frequent to see one of the merge fans spends two minutes pasting the article to be merged in as a subsection of the target article, making no effort whatsover to do an intelligent merge. It is extemely common to see a third person come along later, and trim out the merged material, as they see it as "offtopic". Geo Swan (talk) 05:41, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Gettysburg Battlefield. 76.7.231.130 (talk) 16:23, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Gettysburg Battlefield. For same reason as Anderson's assault.67.239.100.244 (talk) 17:17, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Gettysburg Battlefield. 198.252.15.202 (talk) 19:23, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Streams are generally considered notable, and this one has historical significance and several references. TheCatalyst31 ^{Reaction•Creation} 08:26, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Blueboar and Masem. I am not aware that streams have automatic notability. Unscintillating, I do not understand what you're trying to mean. Drmies (talk) 17:26, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Note to nom -- When you nominate an article for deletion, and 16 of the 17 !voters agree that the text of the article should be kept in some form (whether by a Keep or a Merge), and the 17th is just a weak delete (and that, before sources are added--and even then, his explanation sounds like a merge !vote), there may be a message in it for you. I hope that this feedback will inform your future nomination activity.

I also see that through this moment, in your wikipedia career you've !voted at 23 AfDs, all delete !votes (which is fine in and of itself), most as the nom. But -- only 1 of those AfDs ended up as a redirect, and none of them were closed as a delete. That hasn't seemed to slow your nominations, but perhaps you might give thought as to whether it should.--Epeefleche (talk) 07:55, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Streams are almost always considered notable, and this one is of historical significance and has several references. --DThomsen8 (talk) 17:21, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Does not meet the general notability guideline. WilliamH (talk) 14:03, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Tony Manolatos

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

This article is about a former communications director and former journalist, and current PR firm owner in San Diego. Even regional notability of subject is very limited. Many sources are primary or less-than comprehensive. Article should be deleted. Athene cunicularia (talk) 05:34, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Referenced in several third party sources. His award alone makes him notable. Mr. Anon 515 06:21, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

He's referenced on his own LinkedIn page, on an archive webpage for a newspaper where he used to work, as author of a USA Today article, on a local government press release, and on another Wiki. Surely better references are needed to be on Wikipedia. Additionally, he hasn't won any awards that are widely recognizable. Finally, his page is consistently edited to include information that advertises for his new business venture. Athene cunicularia (talk) 20:25, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:14, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:14, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per nom, no significant references about the subject exist XinJeisan (talk) 09:12, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. I haven't been able to find significant coverage of the subject in reliable sources, to meet the GNG. Them From Space 01:53, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails to meet our notability standards.--Epeefleche (talk) 02:21, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{Let's talk}_{about my edits?} 12:15, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Norullah Noori

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

Procedural nom after questioning of 2010's bulk nomination at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mohammed Nasim (Guantanamo captive 849). Courcelles 06:46, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Afghanistan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:26, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Guantanamo Bay detainment camp-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:27, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:27, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:27, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As I pointed out in the original {{afd}} WP:POLITICIAN says individuals who have held senior government posts -- like Governor -- are considered notable. I offered links to substantiate that Noorullah Noori had been the Taliban's Governor of Balkh province. Noori was listed as number 90 on the United Nations' 1267 list of sanctioned individuals. The list transliterates his name as "Nurullah Nuri", and asserts that not only was he Governor of Balkh, but he was also the administrator of the Northern Region. If I understood the closing administrator's post-facto justification for this deletion he or she could not accept considering the United Nations a reliable source for the positions of government officials like Noori.
- FWIW there are plenty of other references that confirm Noori has been described as a former Governor.
- FWIW he has been described as directing Taliban fighters in his Province to surrender peacefully.
- FWIW after he surrendered General Rashid Dostum took him along to the ruins of Qalia Jangi prison, where hundreds of the men he ordered to surrender were killed in what is usually described as a "prison uprising".
- FWIW in his memoirs Abdul Salam Zaeff, the Taliban's former ambassador to Pakistan, describes being held with Noori in a secret prison on board the USS Bataan.
- FWIW the Taliban recently entered into direct negotiations with the USA -- negoations that did not include the Karzai regime. One of the items under discussion is release, to political asylum in Qatar, of the half dozen remaining senior Taliban leaders still held in Guantanamo. Iranian press reports state that Noori and two other former governors have already been transferred to asylum in Qatar. Geo Swan (talk) 01:20, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete does not meet WP:BIO. None of the published sources appear to give more than passing coverage to this person, and the rest of the sources are routine military reports and court documents so notability isn't established. WP:POLITICAN doesn't actually say that people who have held a senior office are automatically notable as claimed above - it says that such people are "likely to be notable". This appears to be one of the exceptions, which is hardly surprising given that the Taliban government of Afghanistan were secretive and rarely covered in any kind of media. Nick-D (talk) 23:14, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I request Nick-D try to explain why he considers Noori as an exceptional former governor whose governorship did not make him notable.
  Ideally every biographical article on the wikipedia would cover the individual's educational background, whether they were married, had children, covered their career, prior to whatever made them notable. But I contend that such details, while desirable, should not be considered required for an individual to be notable. I've written elsewhere (here and here) about the perfect counter-example "false Geber", an individual whose real name, education, religion, ethnic background, birth date, death date are all a matter of speculation. As I have written elsewhere Isaac Asimov considered false Geber notable enough that he had an entry for him in his Biographical Encyclopedia of Science -- even though absolutely nothing was known of the mundane details of his life. Asimov considered false Geber's publication of the accounts of how to purify and use Sulfuric acid as a key development that justified including him in his encyclopedia.
  We don't know where Noori went to school. We do know he went to school -- remarkable in and of itself, when most Taliban leaders are illiterate. But why, in the name of heck, would that preclude considering him notable, when he has been named in United Nation's resolutions, is the prime subject of negotiations, choose to surrender rather than fight, when the USA invaded Afghanistan?
  Normally mundane details, like education, family status, only very rarely establish notability. I regard it as extremely unfortunate when contributors assert, without real explanation, that articles that lack this information are not notable. Geo Swan (talk) 11:19, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment As you well know, notability of individuals is established by the availability of references to reliable published sources that provide in-depth coverage of the person. The available references do not provide such coverage in my view. Nick-D (talk) 07:10, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - And, as I think you would know, if you took the time to make even a brief search, there are plenty of reliable published sources that cover Noori. What is "in depth" is subjective. It is important for us to do our best to be aware of our own biases, so we don't succumb to allowing our subjective POV to taint what we recognize as "notable", "significant", or "in depth". I've listed some of the things we know about Noori. You haven't tried to explain why you don't recognize this as "in depth" coverage. Nor have you made any meaningful attempt to explain what further information you would recognize as sufficient. So, I repeat that, in my opinion, the closing administrator should discount your unexplained vote. Geo Swan (talk) 16:01, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - IMO the subject lacks "significant coverage" in reliable sources and is there not-notable under the WP:GNG (note - I was the nominator at the previous AFD). Anotherclown (talk) 11:04, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- In the previous {{afd}} respondent above used hundreds of words defending their good faith, [49], [50], [51] and made zero efforts to address the counter-arguments to his or her nomination for deletion.
  However no one in that discussion challenged their good faith.
  I am not challenging their good faith here. I am, however, extremely disappointed in the lack of effort shown to understand and offer a meaningful response to contributors who don't agree with them. Here on the wikipedia we all have an obligation to engage in collegial discussion, we all have an obligation to make a sincere attempt to understand the positions of those who disagree with us. {{Afd}} is WP:NOTAVOTE.
  Respondent above asserts the subject "lacks 'significant coverage'". Over the last month the subject of this article has had dozens of articles cover the negotiations to secure release for him, and political asylum in Qatar. I am afraid this assertion was made without spending 20 seconds on a google search, or without spending 20 seconds looking at the references recently introduced into the article. Geo Swan (talk) 05:53, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- My understanding of the role of the closing administrator in an {{afd}} includes discounting responses that are counter-policy, are based on misunderstandings, and various other reasons. Both respondents who left "delete" votes here, left "delete" votes in the original {{afd}}. In my opinion, both then, and now, they left votes, without making an effort to understand the keep arguments. For this reason I think both these opinions should be discounted.
I've relisted this {{afd}}. Geo Swan (talk) 06:03, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Geo Swan (talk) 06:10, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This really shouldn't have been relisted by someone who has commented on the debate. It seems a rather WP:POINTy thing to do... Nick-D (talk) 07:10, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I checked WP:RELIST prior to relisting, as this is the first time I relisted an {{afd}}. My apologies if the proscription Nick-D asserts exists, actually exists. Geo Swan (talk) 16:07, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Sufficient coverage in multiple reliable sources easily passes GNC. Francis Bond (talk) 07:09, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Appears to have been a senior enough member of the Taliban (which, like it or not, was the government of Afghanistan for a time) for an article. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:46, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep RS for being Governor of Balkh Province. That's notability regardless of anything else. Furthermore, there are enough refs for meeting the GNG. Given these factors, any attempt to delete the article would appear blatantly disruptive. The relisting was at most a harmless error--the deletion attempt was not, though I refrain from commenting on motive. Geo may not choose to challenge the good faith of the re-nom. I accept his charitable decision, but I would have done otherwise. DGG ( talk ) 00:55, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Please do not cast aspersions on my motives,DGG. This was deleted at AFD last year with a consensus that the GNG did not make this fellow notable. We're here because it was a better venue than forcing Geo Sawn to go through DRV to challenge that close when that venue would likely remand it here. Courcelles 03:41, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

To the extent this is a technical renomination, listing it is in good faith. To the extent that someone will argue that the governorship does not show notability, such is not a good faith argument, whether in any prior discussion nor in this one. DGG ( talk ) 04:58, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

- - Courcelles, you assert that there was a consensus to delete. No offense, but I suggest you have unintentionally misrepresented that afd. A consensus is arrived at following a discussion. A discussion requires an exchange of views. Contributors who ignore counter-arguments have not engaged in an exchange of views. I think I offered strong counter-arguments, which those voicing delete ignored. Sorry, but I dispute characterizing their opinions as a "consensus". Geo Swan (talk) 07:10, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Clearly meets our notability guidelines, as indicated by a number of editors above.--Epeefleche (talk) 05:47, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Epeefleche. Johnbod (talk) 15:20, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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