Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2012 February 12

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 11 February	13 February >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:02, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Grannis Lake Estates

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

This is a small subdivision. It doesn't appear notable enough for its own article, though some mention in East Haven, Connecticut could be appropriate. Superm401 - Talk 23:58, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Connecticut-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:18, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete : I agree, as I can't find anything on it other than realtor websites and one mention of it as an area getting electricty back during a blackout. Best, Markvs88 (talk) 04:43, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This neighborhood consists of three dozen families. Delete or merge into East Haven, Connecticut per my standards. Bearian (talk) 22:16, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. NN. Lacks requisite RS coverage.--Epeefleche (talk) 22:24, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy deleted by Reaper Eternal as "(G7: One author who has requested deletion or blanked the page)". Non-admin closure — Frankie (talk) 20:14, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Salvador Tercero

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

Nominating on behalf of User:Wikiwikihealth, who originally created this article, but then today blanked the page with edit summary "deleting bio due to unauthorized info". The article looks fine to me and I see no reason for deletion. Dcoetzee 23:37, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:16, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per G7. While I completely agree with Phil Bridger (talk · contribs) that "no authorisation is required from anyone for an article to be written" ([1]) this is an article where the author and only contributor of substantive content has requested deletion. Yes there are several other contributors to this page but all of those contributions consist of a page move, wiki markup edits, a spelling correction, and this AfD nomination. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 15:35, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:02, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

CityFlyer Express Flight 8106

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

Unremarkable and not notable attempted hijacking. William 23:29, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. -William 23:34, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. -William 23:34, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. -William 23:34, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. -William 23:34, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Nominator fails to describe how it is a non notable hijacking. Passes WP:GNG.--BabbaQ (talk) 15:47, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a not-notable asylum seeker who didnt actually hijack the aircraft rather than just making a fuss so he would get arrested and gain asylum. MilborneOne (talk) 20:27, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails the WP:PERSISTENCE qualifier to the WP:GNG; also WP:AIRCRASH, WP:NOTNEWSPAPER. Not every hijacking is notable. Nothing happened here, no continuing coverage, nothing to make this anything more than a "1E-ish" scenario. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:52, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Completely rewritten, no consensus to delete in this version owing to very little discussion. Sandstein 20:47, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Pseudorationalism

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

The article is an unsalvageable hodge-podge of POV pushing and coatracking. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, this is not a meaningful concept, just a synthesis of numerous pieces from not particularly reliable sources that happen to share a pejorative. —Tom Morris (talk) 22:06, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 22:06, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 22:07, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support [deletion] per nom. I originally prodded this article last week based upon it being an obscure concept with little in the way of reliable sources, but didn't get round to moving it here after it was contested - by a now blocked user. QueenCake (talk) 23:35, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support deletion, per nomination. BrideOfKripkenstein (talk) 15:57, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 20:43, 30 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) 02:17, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unsalvageable as nom says. Whether it's quite a neologism or not, there's nothing substantial here, just POV dressed up with a few unsatisfactory references. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:33, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete - as a dictionary definition doing the lambada with an original essay.~~ Carrite (talk) 01:21, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I will stand down owing to the article's second life with new content. The 1935 article definitely exists, using the German for "Pseudorationalism" in the title, which would imply a keep is on the way. I'm not sure the content here is particularly useful, but that's ultimately an editing matter. Carrite (talk) 17:01, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment FWIW, I blocked the sock who created this article--he has a history of creating poorly sourced articles on neologisms and the like. But the article has been completely rewritten so everyone who !voted above might want to take a second look. I'm not qualified to assess the references used but at first glance the article seems much improved and lambada-free. Valfontis (talk) 21:02, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted after a complete rewrite to generate a discussion on the new version. 23:14, February 12, 2012 (UTC)

Keep as rewritten. After the AfD was largely decided, another editor rewrote the article into an entirely different (and reasonably sourced) topic. My initial intention was to close as inapplicable on that basis, but I welcome evaluation of the material as rewritten. Cheers! bd2412 T 23:21, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:03, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Needing/Getting

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

Fails WP:NSONG - no critical acclaim and has not reached any notable position in any charts (although several people have apparently seen it on YouTube). A merge back into OK Go might be the best outcome. Velella ^{Velella Talk} 22:42, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep - Passes the GNG. NSONG is an alternative means of being notable, but this is clearly notable by the GNG. --MASEM (t) 23:06, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Speedy keep per above; songs don't have to chart to be notable. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 01:08, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Significant coverage in multiple reliable sources; meets WP:GNG and WP:NSONGS. Gongshow ^Talk 02:22, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep. Lots of sources, especially for the music video. It still is notable even if it didn't chart, and the song has also received some reviews. What a pro. (talk) 07:23, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep. Video has been hailed and is part of advertising history. 12:41, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
Keep. Like most things OK Go does, the song is unremarkable, but the video is eminently notable. LukeSurl^{t c} 22:04, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:04, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Kim Seeling Smith

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

Non notable person; entry is one of several along those lines created by the same now-banned account. There do not appear to be any independent sources for the notability of this person. bd2412 T 22:35, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:12, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:12, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: No doubt Ms. Smith is competent in her field, but not notable per Wikipedia guidelines. I see two news references to her, one in passing, one in regards to a personal weight loss story.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 14:22, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:AUTHOR and WP:BK and reads like WP:ADVERT. Qworty (talk) 20:12, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:05, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Malabar matthi curry

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

Deprodded with one source, but I find no other sources. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 22:17, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:10, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:10, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I'm working on it, but perhaps the better title of the article would be simply "Fish curry" as what is described here is a group of variations. DGG ( talk ) 03:21, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rename to Fish curry, then expand. See Google Books search here for coverage in tertiary book sources and Google Scholar search here for "Fish curry." Northamerica1000^(talk) 14:39, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:07, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

List of Games2win games

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

A unreferenced list of unnotable software entries which doesn't have their own wikipedia entry. Clearly a case of WP:NOT. mabdul 21:56, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 23:29, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:30, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:08, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unlikely any of this is notable. OSborn^arf_contribs. 01:19, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Not notable, none of these games have articles or sources to back them up, and it's rather hard to search for sources when so many are such common words/phrases. ("Funny Red Carpet", "Blind Date", "Lover Boy", etc.) Sergecross73 msg me 19:36, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The nominator has summed it up very well. Colon el Tom 11:18, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 14:16, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Megagon

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

Nonsense. How is this polygon (whose name isn't even right; mega for 1 million is an SI prefix ONLY) notable?? Georgia guy (talk) 21:36, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It is, however, sourced to a legitimate math reference. Possibly spurious, but still, merge into Polygon. bd2412 T 22:43, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- An editor has asked what I meant by "spurious" here. I meant that the cited use by David Darling might have been a fanciful cretion on his part. However, further research suggests that there are at least a handful of independent book references to the term; for example, Arthur Greenberg, From Alchemy to Chemistry in Picture and Story (2007): "A megagon is close to the perfection of a circle—a kind of generational transmutation". Still, this is dicdef-level citation, so I continue to support a merge. Cheers! bd2412 T 14:26, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:26, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep or merge. Nomination is based on a misunderstanding about "mega," hence is not valid. And obviously not spurious either: the 1,000,000-sided polygon obviously exists. But is it notable? Factors much like WP:Notability (numbers) come into play (e.g. are there at least three unrelated interesting mathematical properties of this polygon?). There are a few legitimate references (e.g. in textbook exercises, and the ref noted above) in Google Books, but it's very thin, in contrast to chiliagon, which really is notable. -- 202.124.75.53 (talk) 11:16, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - there are numerous mentions of the million-sided polygon in books on philosophy, suggesting that the subject of the article is indeed notable. -- 202.124.72.44 (talk) 13:26, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
But what would this polygon's actual name be?? Remember, mega- meaning 1 million is an SI prefix ONLY. Otherwise mega- means great. Georgia guy (talk) 13:42, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You keep saying "mega- meaning 1 million is an SI prefix ONLY." That simply is not true. The prefix is also used in non-SI units (such as megacalorie) to mean 10^6, and also in other contexts (like this) where "mega" denotes a number. There are several book sources using "megagon" for the million-sided polygon, and numerous sources demonstrating that the million-sided polygon is notable. Given the notability, the article should be kept. -- 202.124.72.52 (talk) 14:30, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps the authors of the books might have speculated that mega- meaning 1 million is a general numerical prefix. Sometimes people speculate things, but I'm aware that mega- meaning 1 million is an SI prefix only; otherwise it means great. Go to the table at Number prefix. It doesn't mention mega- for 1 million. Georgia guy (talk) 14:44, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Mega meaning 1 million is NOT an SI prefix only. Your repeating that here and in the previous AfD does not make it true. For example, megacalorie is not an SI unit. There are many other non-SI uses of the prefix in this sense. Your entire nomination rationale is, I am afraid, built on a misapprehension. -- 202.124.72.52 (talk) 14:54, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, calorie is a unit. SI prefixes can be used with units to indicate a power of 1000 times the unit. But we don't use SI prefixes to extrapolate a sequence made with number prefixes. The table in Number prefix mentions myria- for 10,000. But it does not mention mega- for 1 million. Georgia guy (talk) 14:59, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What the table in Number prefix says is irrelevant; presumably "mega" is excluded as it wasn't a Greek number prefix. But with words like "megapixel", it is now part of English. And the article now has enough content for WP:N. -- 202.124.74.37 (talk) 03:49, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep It has gone from unreferenced to having numerous refs in the course of the AFD, Other than the first ref, the books and journal articles speak of a "million sided polygon" rather than specifically a "megagon." But we are not the "language police," to delete articles because they offend some editor's sense of what prefix should be used with what suffix.Keep It has gone from unreferenced to having numerous refs in the course of the AFD, though it is not clear in every case what the depth of coverage is. The nominator's sense of the name being "incorrect" does not overrule numerous books from scholarly publishers such as John Wiley & Sons which use the term. We should follow what scholarly reliable sources use as terminology and not act as the "original research language police. " Edison (talk) 20:50, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Edison, can you explain which rule in Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions my rationale violates?? Georgia guy (talk) 20:53, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The part of the rationale which asserts that the usage is improper is far less compelling than the part which argues it lacks sources to support notability. If "Improper nomenclature" were a valid reason for deletion, then we could use it in AFDs for scientific terms which combine a Greek and a Latin part, such as the words in the list of Hybrid words such as bigram, hexadecimal, mega-annum, microvitum, or nonagon, not to mention television. Stating your linguistic objection did not, in my opinion, strengthen your deletion nomination. We are not restricted to articles about subjects the names of which comply with SI. Edison (talk) 21:14, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The article has been improved since the nomination: there are now enough references to establish notability, and enough content to justify a separate article. I agree that the naming issue is irrelevant to this discussion. Jowa fan (talk) 23:02, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. Hits both G3 and A7 for misinformation and non-notability. — foxj 03:42, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

MARIAN RICHERO

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

Prod (and maintenance tags) removed by artiicle creator. Prod rationale was "No evidence that the subject meets the notability criteria for musicians. (Equivalent page has been blocked on Italian Wikipedia.)" and that remains the rationale for bringing it to AfD. AllyD (talk) 21:35, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete, no notability, no claims of notability. The Mark of the Beast (talk) 21:39, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Given the history that I see on the Italian page, repeated re-creations seem likely. (And we now have an IP editor enthusiastically reverting off the AfD template.) AllyD (talk) 21:41, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: the creator of this article has been blocked for repeated removal of the AfD template. --Kinu ^t/_c 21:53, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete, no notability. Possibly a speedy as I see zero credible claims of any importance. --Kinu ^t/_c 21:56, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - notability not established (even if he has to SHOUT his name!). Eddie.willers (talk) 23:07, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Totally not notable. Same IPs are causing the same problems with the image at Commons too - I say block for crosswiki vandalism to boot QU ^TalkQu 23:27, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:14, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:17, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and salt and place on title blacklist I've tagged this page multiple times under too many different titles. Under G3. As a hoax. →Σ τ c. 03:40, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep; discussion closed by nominator under WP:SNOW. Baffle gab1978 (talk) 20:44, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Seattle FilmWorks

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

Non-notable company; all referenced sources are either a) advertisements placed by this company (6,7), amateur homepages, forum posts or blogs (1,2,9,16,21), linkfarms (19,20) or are peripheral or irrelevant to the subject. My attempt to establish notability through reliable sources about this company has failed; I checked Google web and news searches and found nothing more substantial than casual mentions in reliable sources. Prod deletion was opposed; too many 'references' for speedy. This is part of a walled garden with Double Exposure, Ltd. Laboratory and SFW-XL - both of which I have prodded. Baffle gab1978 (talk) 21:14, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, although the article needs a ton of improvement. As I recently noted on the article's Talk page, I do think that Seattle FilmWorks was a notable company, but I also agree with the nominator that this notability has not yet been well-established by what's currently in the article. The article currently contains a lot of detail in the vein of WP:NOTHOWTO but doesn't yet show how this company was covered in independent reliable sources. However, quite a bit of such coverage exists, as suggested by the search results at GNews[2] and GBooks[3]. Unfortunately, digging through this material is complicated by paywall barriers, by the precarious state of the Seattle Post-Intelligencer online archives, and because many of the Ghits turn out to be actual Seattle FilmWorks advertisements (as the article mentions, their print ads used to be everywhere). The Seattle Times archives are in somewhat better shape than the P-I's, and a search there[4] also produces hundreds of articles which may be helpful in explaining this company's one-time prominence in the film world. Here, however, is one clear example of such coverage: Cynthia Flash, "Photo Processor Using Net to Enlarge Its Base; Technology: Analysts say Seattle Filmworks' offering of pictures on disk shows its savvy marketing." Associated Press in Los Angeles Times, April 7, 1997. This article describes in detail how, as of 1997, Seattle FilmWorks was "a leader in mail-order photo finishing", "the first to offer both slides and negatives off the same roll", "the first photo processor to offer pictures on computer disk", "an anomaly in the photo finishing market", etc. Ominously, though, that 1997 article also mentioned, "Digital cameras, which allow people to load photographs directly from a camera into a computer, could render Seattle Filmworks' processing obsolete." Imagine that. --Arxiloxos (talk) 21:23, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:05, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep enough evidence that its a major company, and notable. That it is not in business now is irrelevant. WP covers the historical aspect of things also--that's one of the differences etween and encylopedia and a Directory DGG ( talk ) 03:25, 13 February 2012 (UTC) DGG ( talk ) 03:25, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, largely per Arxiloxos. This consumer firm played a significant role in the period towards the end of real photography. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 16:55, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per above. The film was unique, the processing was unique and very popular in its time period. I did some basic research, plenty of articles. tedder (talk) 17:20, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Thanks to everyone for your comments, and especially to Arxiloxos for finding reliable sources I was unable to find. Now that notability is established and the result of this discussion is obvious, I'm closing it as Keep under WP:SNOW. Baffle gab1978 (talk) 20:44, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete as a hoax. Logan Pugh is a member of District 16 but there is no evidence that a school was ever named after him. TerriersFan (talk) 23:43, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Logan Pugh High School

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

I can't find any references for this school anywhere, I'm beginning to think this school doesn't even exist. oyasumi (talk) 19:58, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Just searched the address on Google Maps, comes up with a street with no schools. oyasumi (talk) 20:00, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This school does not seem to exist. Hoax? •••Life of Riley (T–C) 20:21, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - gives every indication of being a hoax. Eddie.willers (talk) 21:03, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- Closest reference I find is a high school sophomore football player in Alabama. Dru of Id (talk) 21:10, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Unable to find any ref to this school existing, hoax? Paste _{Let’s have a chat.} 21:32, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:59, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:59, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:08, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Jeremy Case

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

Subject fails Wikipedia:NCOLLATH. Not notable as a player as he has not won a national award, holds no records and has not received significant news coverage as an individual. NCOLLATH says that SOME assistant coaches are notable, using the language "well-known assistant coaches" - I would submit that Case is not well known as an assistant based on college basketball coverage. Rikster2 (talk) 19:37, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. Rikster2 (talk) 19:52, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:23, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and also because he fails WP:GNG. Jrcla2 (talk) 21:39, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails GNG and NSPORTS. cmadler (talk) 17:36, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Poorly sourced BLP. Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:09, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Martin Higgins

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

Obscure film/TV person; article is autobiographical, "sourced" to primary sources, and lacks any substantial evidence of notability (local "Emmy" award nominations do not constitute notability). Orange Mike | Talk 19:29, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:22, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails notability threshold and looks like a case of WP:COI on part of original author. Eddie.willers (talk) 21:05, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Unsourced BLP. Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:11, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Taylor Doherty

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

Fails WP:GNG. Has appeared in only a couple of things. In the reviews of Boy A, the character is mentioned, but there's no significant coverage of Doherty. He may establish notability later, but I don't see any now. Bbb23 (talk) 18:28, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:58, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - notability not established. Eddie.willers (talk) 23:11, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Nomination Withdrawn. Lenticel ^(talk) 02:45, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Deserter (1912 film)

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

Fails WP:GNG. Bbb23 (talk) 18:14, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Thomas H. Ince was one of the most important figures in early cinema history and the film also stars Francis Ford, again an important figure in early cinema. The film was screened in 2006 as part of a retrospective on Ince at the MoMA, so this passes point 2 of Wikipedia:NF#Other_evidence_of_notability ("The film was given a commercial re-release, or screened in a festival, at least five years after initial release.") Difficult to find sources, but not impossible, for a film from one hundred years ago. I'm sure there are press reviews from that time too. Lugnuts (talk) 18:59, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Seems to me this all goes to the notability of Ince and possibly Ford, but not to the film itself. Also, the screening of the film at a museum exhibition as part of a retrospective on Ince is not really a screening at a festival. I don't see sufficient notability for a separate article, although I do agree that with silent films it's much harder to find sources.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:05, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Deleting verified material about an extant Ince film from 1912 can't possibly improve our coverage of silent films. --Arxiloxos (talk) 19:49, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:56, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per Lugnuts. Edison (talk) 21:55, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Given that very few productions from the Silent Era exist, I would argue that extant works are automatically notable. Eddie.willers (talk) 23:17, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: It is at the Library of Congress. Here is a paragraph which is a review that states that it is one of his few surviving films. SL93 (talk) 01:11, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Even with the first reference, it passes "The film was selected for preservation in a national archive.". SL93 (talk) 00:58, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- 1912 review snippets. SL93 (talk) 01:20, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nice work. I'll withdraw the nomination. Anyone who feels comfortable closing the AfD, either as an administrator or as a non-administrative closure, feel free.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:22, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:13, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

La Pyramide

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

Deprodded by claim of "hundreds of sources" but all I found was tourist-y directory listings (Fodor's and that lot). Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 18:13, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. A restaurant with three Michelin stars is pretty obviously notable by any sensible definition of the term. The source that I added to the article is far from a "tourist-y directory listing" and those hundreds more can be found here. Just two examples from near the top of those results are a book from the Cambridge University Press confirming that this restaurant "enjoyed immense status since the early 1930s", and one from the Oxford University Press saying that "Novelle cuisine's roots are in the French town of Vienne in the 1950s and the chef Fernand Point's renowned Michelin three-starred restaurant, La Pyramide". Phil Bridger (talk) 18:41, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I sure as hell didn't find those on Google Books! Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 19:16, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:55, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:55, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:56, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Pyramide was one of the most famous restaurants in France. (I believe I first read about it in Vincent & Mary Price's classic Treasury of Great Recipes, which sadly seems not to be searchable on-line.) --Arxiloxos (talk) 19:59, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Sandstein 07:11, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My Brother (book)

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

Very little coverage that I can find, does not seem to have made much of an impact. Two mentions on google news, one a passing mention. The other a dead link. Darkness Shines (talk) 13:07, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:40, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:40, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep: Notable book, sources: [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15]. And a series of academic work on it [16]. Darkness Shines has a given history of tagging Pakistan related articles with Afd/CSD which turn out to be against deletion criteria or notable. So far all of such articles where I've commented were kept as a result of discussion (with one restored from CSD). --lTopGunl (talk) 19:59, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I will review these and let you know what I find, I can tell you your first source only mentions the book in passing and is actually a review on a book on the life of the author. Darkness Shines (talk) 20:46, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Second source is just a mention of the book. Darkness Shines (talk) 20:54, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Third source a single quote from the book no other coverage.
Just a single mention in passing.
Just a single mention in passing.
This one is a review, so far we have one.
Brief mention in passing.
Do not see it in here at all? Darkness Shines (talk) 20:58, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
A single passing mention.
A single passing mention.
Cannot find it mentioned here either? Darkness Shines (talk) 11:08, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The first page on Gbooks shows only passing mentions also. Not really Significant coverage as TG alludes to. Darkness Shines (talk) 11:11, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
In response to TG's flawed Google search. There are 147 results on books. The first two pages show singular brief mentions only. There are 12,700 on a general Google search, apart from pirate sites the first few pages seem much the same as the rest of the search's, no reliable sources giving in depth coverage of the subject. Darkness Shines (talk) 14:27, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

325 "passing mentions" in google books and 24,500 in a google search... says something else. A complete review on the book (along with authors biography) is not a passing mention. As the user below confirms, this is one of the most notable biographies of M.A. Jinnah. The fact that many biographies themselves quote this book with the reference to its notability is in itself an argument for it to be kept. --lTopGunl (talk) 07:29, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Brief passing mentions in the sources you provided to not quite give the "Significant coverage" required to meet WP:NOTE We have only one review. That is not what I would call Significant coverage by multiple reliable sources. Darkness Shines (talk) 11:08, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Actually this book is among one of the quite few notable biographies on M.A. Jinnah, and more so considering the fact that it was written by his sister who, by all accounts, played the most influential role throughout his life and political career. Sources by TG can also be used in the article if appropriate. Mar4d (talk) 00:40, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the stub can have all the sources... may be this was good for it in the end. --lTopGunl (talk) 07:30, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No, as the sources you found do not cover the book in any detail bar one. Darkness Shines (talk) 11:08, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Based on my review of the sources given by TopGun above the article fails WP:BK which says The book has been the subject[1] of multiple, non-trivial[2] published works whose sources are independent of the book itself.[3] This includes published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, other books, television documentaries and reviews. Some of these works should contain sufficient critical commentary to allow the article to grow past a simple plot summary As we have but one review on the book then it will not be possible to expand it beyond a plot summary which the one review given actually is. Darkness Shines (talk) 13:35, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You know this argument belongs to the article talk and not the Afd? Improving the article is a different story than proving the subject's notability. We have loads of references here both in the academic work and the news results to prove that. --lTopGunl (talk) 13:52, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You know, it gets quite tedious when you post a great many links to prove notability, then when I take the time to check said links they turn out to be of no use. The references are no good, they do not discuss the subject in detail. Passing mentions are not notable. The only think your "loads of references" prove is that the book is not notable. Darkness Shines (talk) 13:57, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You are not the only one who has to check the links. I disagree with you over that as these actually are multiple mentions that prove notability (I've also give a gbooks search link which gives many more). Let this be checked by others as well. It is WP:Tendentious editing tagging every other article for Afd this way. --lTopGunl (talk) 14:04, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

non-trivial Do you know what that means? It means more than a mention, she wrote a book called my bro is not significant coverage. What part of this do you not get? Darkness Shines (talk) 14:20, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Not every source presented by TopGun is a winner, but enough of them do to establish notability. Sergecross73 msg me 23:29, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Actually no, they establish the notability of the author, not the book. Darkness Shines (talk) 14:52, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree, and you've made your view on this abundantly clear. Sergecross73 msg me 18:09, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I have cleaned up the article some, added some of the sources, etc. Another thought: Beyond the sources argument, I also wonder if it passes WP:NBOOK point #3 - The book has been considered by reliable sources to have made a significant contribution to a notable motion picture, or other art form, or event or political or religious movement. Considering how influential the writer and subject are in Pakistan's development, how the book is all about detailing his political achievements because it was felt other biography's didn't do a good enough job, and how frequently the book is mentioned in biography's of the two, I feel it could be relevant. Sergecross73 msg me 13:57, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Great. I think it is good enough per WP:HEY now. --lTopGunl (talk) 14:04, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 17:41, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion reopened and relisted per Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2012 February 12. Sandstein 17:42, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note; There's further relevant discussion and sources at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2012 February 12. --lTopGunl (talk) 17:47, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The Del Rev brought foreth the additional source from the Daily Times [17], a very extensive detailed review of the book. In view of that, it's a clear keep. The interpretation of "multiple sources" normally used here is "multiple sources or one really excellent source" rather than being taken literally--all notable guidelines are flexible. Anyway, there are now multiple source. I tend to be rather skeptical about NBOOK, on the basis that 2 relatively trivial reviews is not enough in many subjects--where any academic book will be reviewed by the professional journals as a matter of course. But this now fully meets any reasonable interpr etation of the standard. DGG ( talk ) 18:53, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That was the only source presented above which discussed the book in any detail, we still have b but one source. Darkness Shines (talk) 20:12, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. A decent, if short, article. the book is old and historical, with no apparent reasons to take a harsh line due to fears of promotion. At worst, merge to Muhammad Ali Jinnah, and then spin out something larger. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:48, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Sufficient RS coverage to meet our notability guidelines.--Epeefleche (talk) 01:08, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Daily Times source among others is sufficient for this to meet our notability guidelines. --He to Hecuba (talk) 17:50, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus with leave to speedy renominate. Relisted twice and since Sandstein didn't find a sufficient consensus to ring this up 8 days ago, I'm going to close it that way. Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:17, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Munster Junior Club Football Championship

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

This championship lacks requisite multiple independent substantial RS coverage. Article creator has been blocked for over 2 years for repeatedly creating inappropriate articles. Epeefleche (talk) 20:39, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:45, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{Let's talk}_{about my edits?} 11:05, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nominator (fails WP:GNG). Gaelic football is one of the two most popular spectator sports in the Republic of Ireland, and senior level games receive a lot of coverage. However, it's hard to find much coverage of the second level intermediate games, and the third-level junior teams rarely seem to get more than results listings in local papers. (for a list of levels, see Gaelic football#Leagues_and_team_structure). --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:39, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I believe that the Junior & Intermediate grades do get much coverage. The local papers cover these in major detail. Since the creation of provincial & All-Ireland competitions for clubs at these levels, interest & coverage have grown. One saw this especially with the recent semi-final of the All-Ireland Junior Club Football Championship between Dromid Pearses & Derrytrask. The national pagers & media interest is now very high. --Pmunited (talk) 17:32, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I have not seen much coverage myself, and although I am not a sports fan (so wouldn't usually seek it out) have been looking today at the websites of both local and national newspapers. I found nothing of any significance, and have had no more luck with the search terms suggested by your comment. The coverage of that match seems to be overwhelmingly related to the mass brawl which made national headlines(e.g. [18], [19], [20]). That may be enough to justify coverage of that one match (tho WP:NOTNEWSPAPER suggests caution), but it does not seem to me to be evidence of wider substantial coverage.

I readily accept that I may have looked in the wrong places, so if anyone wants to provide some evidence of ongoing substantial coverage of junior level matches, that would be very helpful. If you are right that national pagers & media interest is now very high, then it should not be hard to find. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:10, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 17:19, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:18, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

KBCH-TV

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

Non-notable school-operated TV station. Lacks substantial RS coverage in gnews and gbooks. Article is of no help demonstrating notability, as it has zero refs. Tagged for notability for 2 years. Creator is 1-edit-only-ever SPA named Tvteacher. Epeefleche (talk) 17:14, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:48, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:49, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Apparently not a broadcasting station and not licensed. Student activities at a high school have no inherent notability. Appears to fail WP:ORG. Edison (talk) 21:57, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No indication of notability. SL93 (talk) 00:40, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Not a licensed station under the FCC, does not enjoy the notability attached to legal and licensed radio and television stations. Fails GNG, along with ORG. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 03:07, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: especially since it is not licensed. I hope that it is fun for the students working on it but it doesn't meet notability guidelines for inclusion here at WikiP. MarnetteD | Talk 18:34, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I can not find significant coverage in reliable sources; does not appear to meet WP:GNG or WP:ORG. Gongshow ^Talk 06:00, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. henrik•talk 06:30, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Israel–Marshall Islands relations

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

Delete. Well-written article, the results of which probably should be "somewhere." But votes in the General Assembly do not constitute "diplomatic relations." They are simply votes. No more than the parliamentarian from Leeds (of a different party) supporting the position of the delegate from Liverpool. Has nothing to do with Leeds-Liverpool relations necessarily! If each vote someplace were chronicled as "relations" between the two countries, states or cities involved, it would take another several million articles. Not too sure of the value. Student7 (talk) 14:13, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:34, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oceania-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:35, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:35, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

delete nicely put above. Voting in support in the UN does not equate to notable bilateral relations. No evidence of trade, agreement, high level visits. Do Israelis go to Marshall islands for holidays? LibStar (talk) 13:24, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please take another look now. There are now refs reflecting article coverage of a highest level visit -- in 2005 by Marshall Islands President Kessai Hesa Note -- to Israel, as well as other RS coverage.--Epeefleche (talk) 06:43, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

keep. Regardless of the current contents of the article, there are diplomatic relations between the countries. Michael Ronen is the Israeli ambassador to the 13 Pacific Islands, including the Marshall Islands. As part of a series about bilateral relations, this article is automatically notable. Marokwitz (talk) 20:23, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

note. The article was rewritten. Marokwitz (talk) 20:46, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

bilateral articles are not automatically notable, over 100 have been deleted. Is the ambassador a resident ambassador? I don't think so. LibStar (talk) 06:20, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Have you read the article after the rewrite? Marokwitz (talk) 08:26, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. In fact, just re-read it. It doesn't seem like the same article anymore. Not terrifically persuasive, but definitely not the low-level stuff it was before. Student7 (talk) 15:22, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please clarify, do you still think the article should be deleted in its present improved state, or not? Marokwitz (talk) 11:23, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The article was very helpful to me. Why delete it if you don't have to? It'll probably be helpful to someone else sometime as well. They won't have to go around to a bunch of random websites before looking a wikipedia and finding all the information they just collected in one place. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.131.76.157 (talk) 02:57, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- See WP:ITSUSEFUL. - Biruitorul ^Talk 16:12, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Which says:
    If reasons are given, "usefulness" can be the basis of a valid argument for inclusion. An encyclopedia should, by definition, be informative and useful to its readers. Try to exercise common sense, and consider how a non-trivial number of people will consider the information "useful". An argument based on usefulness can be valid if put in context.
Delete - there is no source —none—actually covering relations between Israel and the Marshall Islands. There are a handful of mentions of the extremely limited interactions of these two states, which one user has strained rather too hard to find by trawling Google Books snippets, but nothing this encyclopedia would normally take notice of. We don't normally document purchases of water desalination plants, openings of poultry projects, sending of citrus experts or of ophthalmologists, or perfunctory statements of friendly relations. For relations that actually matter (Israel–Jordan relations, Iran–Israel relations, Germany–Israel relations, etc) it would be absurd to set the bar so low, and the only reason that's being attempted here is that there's nothing of substance to this relationship, so we have to content ourselves with trivia. That always happens when the notability of such a topic isn't immediately obvious from an abundance of sources — such as here.
Now, consistent support at the General Assembly is marginally relevant. And guess what? It's duly noted in the proper place. No more is needed. - Biruitorul ^Talk 16:12, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 17:13, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Appropriate article on notable subject, well-referenced, and in keeping with hundreds (Perhaps thousands? Some countries alone have hundreds) of parallel articles at the Project that can be found at Category:Bilateral relations.--Epeefleche (talk) 03:31, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- If this is a notable subject, why has not one third-party source actually addressed the subject as such? (Instances where Israel and the Marshall Islands happen to have interacted, and where these were then deemed by a Wikipedian to be evidence of "relations", don't count.)
- Related to the above—"well-referenced" to what end? In other words, bringing in trivia about how one country helped open a poultry plant in the other—trivia that this encyclopedia would never normally notice, and only takes into account now as part of this pointless exercise in "watch me do this"—does not validate an article on anything, much as some may pretend it does. References need to back up a topic that published sources outside Wikipedia have noticed exists; this is not the case here.
- See WP:WAX: just because we have articles on bilateral relations that actually are notable (say, Egypt–Israel relations) does not imply all such pairings are notable. - Biruitorul ^Talk 02:10, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The assertion that "not one third party source" addressed the subject as such is not accurate. For starters -- take a look at the article in The Jerusalem Post, entitled "Marshall Islands proud to support Israel", devoted entirely to this subject. And the articles about the 2005 state visit of Marshall Islands President Kessai Note to Israel. Then there is a host of other RS coverage, and reference to the support by the Marshall Islands for Israel -- often by notable people, including U.S. Congressmen and Israel's Ambassador to the UN, as well as by Iran's Press TV. And as to WAX -- it is entirely appropriate in these circumstances to refer to the hundreds (and perhaps thousands) of parallel articles. As the essay itself makes clear: "While these comparisons are not a conclusive test, they may form part of a cogent argument."--Epeefleche (talk) 03:29, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I was almost convinced until I read Biruitorul's analysis. Being mentioned in the Jerusalem Post or the Marshall Island Times, would not truly be the type of WP:RS and secondary source we would like to see here. We know it happened. But it does seem to lack notability, which neither Jerusalem nor the MI would naturally care about, being two small nations, one of which nearly everyone hates, the other being a small nation that almost no one cares about! (Sorry). Student7 (talk) 18:18, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not as clear as I might be as to your point. The article reflects multiple RS coverage. Are you asserting that the Jerusalem Post is not an RS? If so, on what basis? Are you basing your position on your view that "nearly everyone hates" one of the nations?--Epeefleche (talk) 18:25, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Desalinization plants? Golly. We're getting a bit desperate for material if we're down to that. There's probably 10,000 of them in existence. Student7 (talk) 14:17, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Focus on the indicia of notability that I pointed you to above. The article in The Jerusalem Post, entitled "Marshall Islands proud to support Israel", devoted entirely to this subject. The articles about the 2005 state visit of Marshall Islands President Kessai Note to Israel. The articles in Iran's Press TV. The references to the support by the Marshall Islands for Israel by U.S. Congressmen and Israel's Ambassador to the UN.--Epeefleche (talk) 15:21, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well, if the English, Canadians, Australians, or anybody in some other language than English, thought this was news besides the predictable pov plaudits from MI, US, and Israel, it would be great. Not debatable as to fact. Just debatable as to importance. Sources are almost notoriously pov. Student7 (talk) 13:06, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So -- you believe that US and Israeli and Marshall Islands RSs do not count, towards notability?--Epeefleche (talk) 14:34, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the MI and Israeli refs are more like company publications. Mandatory articles. I must have missed the US ref. If it was mentioned in some desalinization journal, that is more a matter of a MI article, rather than "International relations."
Keep as rewritten. I agree with Epeefleche her that there are sources. Although some articles of this type have indeed been deleted, most have been kept. The argument seems to be that since we have deleted some articles on motion pictures, and therefore should delete them all, (Actually, I think those deletions were most of them rather rash, and anyone prepared to work with printed sources could find material.) DGG ( talk ) 04:13, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is a topic of interest and problems that exist in the article can be fixed. Zero^talk 20:34, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The second part ("Trade and aid") is at the fringe of original synthesis and it might be an improvement to the article to blank it, but the first part has a non-fringe topic (diplomatic relations between two states, about which non-trivial sources exist). Were the two states minnows, I might hesitate, but I am nearly sure that the bilateral relations between Israel (or Russia, or Iran, or Brazil, or any diplomatically important country) and any other state are an admissible topic. French Tourist (talk) 20:59, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per improvements since nomination and due to general notability of international relations involving major countries, such as Israel, which due to the Middle East conflicts is either supported or condemned by just about all other countries sooner or later. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Temporary for Bonaparte (talk • contribs) 21:44, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 14:15, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

State Legislator's Against Illegal Guns

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

Speedy tag keeps getting removed, ~~by what may be a sock.~~ By the creators own words, a new organization that only has info on its own website, see talk page. Dennis Brown (talk) 17:11, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - as per WP:TOOSOON, notability not established. Eddie.willers (talk) 21:08, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I see some sites have changed up, but it appears the original creator actually included links that are against this group posing as being FOR the group, ie: it was started with NPOV issues. Still isn't notable, but more reason it should have been speedy deleted, which I'm still all for (if some SPA hadn't kept removing), A7, as well as vandalism from the start. Dennis Brown (talk) 23:30, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No sources, no indication of notability. - SummerPhD (talk) 02:22, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 20:08, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 20:08, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 20:08, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Clearly fails WP:ORG.--JayJasper (talk) 21:46, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'd say keep; if the article got off to a bad start, that doesn't mean the subject is unworthy. I've put a source on the page, but this set-up says it's been around for ~~-8-~~ nearly 6 years,^correction and is an offshoot of another organization which we do see as notable, so there must be more about it somewhere. I'm all for giving it a chance. Swanny18 (talk) 03:14, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(PS: Got the time wrong; I've fixed it. Also added another source. Swanny18 (talk) 23:43, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

- It isn't about "giving it a chance", it is about significant coverage in multiple reliable sources. A look at the sources provided doesn't impress. A blog and the other one is an "announcement", which is the government's equivalent of a press release, and can't be used to establish notability. On all counts, neither pass WP:N/RS as establishing notability. Seriously, if this was notable, wouldn't there be dozens of news articles on it? It isn't, which is why we are here. Dennis Brown (talk) 23:55, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Black Kite (talk) 19:20, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Coalition for Christian Outreach

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

Non-notable religious organization. The sources do not provide sufficient evidence of notability to demonstrate that the CCO has "gained sufficiently significant attention by the world at large and over a period of time." Sources provided are glancing mentions. Previous AFD 10 months ago, closed as "no consensus." GrapedApe (talk) 17:05, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Was sufficiently sourced by MelanieN during the last AfD. Passes WP:GNG. --Arxiloxos (talk) 20:29, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- That was not the result. The closure was "no consensus"--GrapedApe (talk) 21:40, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The coverage doesn't pass GNG - it's all trivial, routine, ultra-local, and/or otherwise not establishing notability. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 23:35, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 19:57, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 19:57, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. While individual chapters won't generally be notable, the organization is. This is the equivalent of a fraternity such as Phi Gamma Delta. The "Best Christian Workplace" got coverage in the press. St Anselm (talk) 21:07, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Listed in Directory of religious organizations in the United States, with lots and lots of Google Books sources – not surprising, since they have been around for 40 years, and are active on campuses in Pennsylvania, Ohio, New York, West Virginia, and Washington DC. The previous AfD also pointed out the existence of news sources. -- 202.124.75.46 (talk) 08:42, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Clearly keep -- clearly a significant organisation in the states where it operates. Peterkingiron (talk) 23:12, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Closed as article has been speedy deleted (not by me...). Peridon (talk) 19:06, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Businessman Danny Watts

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

Non-notable biography with one primary "source" MacAddct1984 ^{(talk  contribs)} 17:05, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Could be a speedy, imho.--GrapedApe (talk) 17:08, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Sven Manguard Wha? 17:09, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Of course the page is from one source, there is only one source on Danny Watts, he is a former drug addict who overcame a 7 year addiction and has launched the Blue Hand Project, there are no other sources. Please do not delete this page. It is not a big corporation advertising through Wiki it is about somebody who started a drug education company and is making a difference to the wider community. --Bobby999UK (talk)17:14, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please Do Not Delete - It is about a businessman who has created a platform to help young people (and the wider community) who are in the same position he was.. It would be a travesty to delete this page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bobby999UK (talk • contribs) 17:21, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So is this page being deleted? So unfair if it is because I believe it would benefit the Wikipedia community Bobby999UK (talk) 17:25, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No claim of notability. Can't find reliable sources on Google and Gnews S_peakF_ree ^(talk)_(contribs) 18:19, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete I fail to see any claim of importance. Even if his story is somewhat compelling, there's no way that Mr Watts come anywhere close to meeting the requirements of WP:BIO. Pichpich (talk) 18:21, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete While I wish Danny well. and hope his project succeeds, it's too soon for an article here. The platform is not due to be launched until September 2012, so there is very little chance of notability yet. I do see little in the article to justify 'businessman' as a description, and wonder how anything of a business could have been built in the time since the drug problem ended. I congratulate him on his GCSEs, and feel that if he could achieve that, he can make good in the future without the handicap he was under. Good luck, and come back when the success is able to be referenced. Peridon (talk) 18:49, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:20, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Obullo

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

yet another "web application framework". Not notable. No independent sources - article created by the framework creator. Disputed prod. noq (talk) 16:50, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No notability demonstrated. A project of article creator which may one day be notable, but a google search doesn't find much other than chat amongst its developers. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 17:17, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:N. oyasumi (talk) 17:47, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I found zero significant coverage. SL93 (talk) 00:39, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 19:54, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The best source I could find is Best Lightweight PHP Frameworks of 2010 by some semi-blog, comparing maintained frameworks with the size not exceeding 1Mb. The rating of this software is 18/18. Definitely notable software... — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 20:41, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails to meet our N requirements.--Epeefleche (talk) 02:06, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:20, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Simon R. Gladdish

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

This subject fails WP:BASIC and alternative criteria at WP:AUTHOR and WP:ANYBIO. Though this subject has published several works, they have not garnered substantial coverage in multiple third party sources. This individual hasn't been cited or reviewed to the extent that he approaches WP:AUTHOR, nor has he been awarded with anything that would obviously satisfy WP:ANYBIO. It's just WP:TOOSOON to call this person notable by Wiki standards. JFHJr (㊟) 16:33, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Agree with nomination, subject's work has not produced any significant secondary literature so fails WP:NOTE.Coffeepusher (talk) 16:44, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Gladdish has not yet written anything significant and does not appear in any reliable sources. He may become notable in the future; presently, he is not. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 16:45, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I can't find anything about him, either.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:52, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all of above, as well as my previous conversations with the article's author and elsewhere [21]. 99.12.242.7 (talk) 16:57, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete pn, nothing to add. ukexpat (talk) 17:00, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Re: the page ratings--in this case quite high--does anyone treat them seriously? My observation is that they often appear to be utilized by interested parties in order to bolster an article's credibility, and are essentially useless. 99.12.242.7 (talk) 17:03, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment II I'd appreciate any help re: user Riccardito's persistence in removing cite tags from the article, and to continued false characterization of others' efforts to clean up the article as vandalism and attacks. Tired of edit warring over this. Thanks, 99.12.242.7 (talk) 21:21, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

First, you're both edit-warring, so you should stop. Second, the tags are borderline because there is a source (his website), and although self-published websites are not great for sourcing material, the assertions are not particularly self-serving (certainly not the material about his wife), so it's not that big a deal. Third, it's not worth getting all riled up while it's at AfD. If the article is kept, then you can get all riled up. :-) --Bbb23 (talk) 21:38, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Points taken, absolutely correct. Thanks. 99.12.242.7 (talk) 21:40, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. bd2412 T 22:45, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all the above, another "look I got my cv on WP" article. CaptainScreebo ^Parley! 10:59, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 19:52, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 19:52, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Lacks RS coverage. Well put by the Captain. Let's snow this, to save the Project's editors further review time.--Epeefleche (talk) 06:52, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment SNOW I agree with Epeefleche and think this is a classic WP:SNOW, no one is defending this article after several days. Any chance for a close?Coffeepusher (talk) 03:42, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:21, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Mohammed M S Jan

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

Unsourced biography of a living person. Looks like a resume. Notability per WP:ACADEMIC unclear. bender235 (talk) 16:14, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 19:48, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 19:48, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Saudi Arabia-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 19:48, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Actually this is not an unsourced biography; it contains sources, they are just not in proper reference form (and they are not independent). The key reference is this one from his university. It spells out his credentials but they do not seem enough to pass the requirements of WP:ACADEMIC - for example, he is not the editor of a major academic journal, and has not received a notable prize or award. He does have some publications in his field but they are not highly cited. Overall I don't believe he meets WP:ACADEMIC at this time. --MelanieN (talk) 23:39, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:21, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Chaotic Daw

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

I found no significant coverage. SL93 (talk) 15:52, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Total lack of reliable coverage of this in-beta music composition application. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 16:39, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The software is not even complete yet (only in its beta stage), and I can find nothing beyond primary sources to establish notability. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 16:47, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 19:46, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 19:46, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: no sources found. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 20:43, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:22, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Call 2 Win

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

Fails WP:GNG. Google search does not show substantial third party coverage. Google news search does not show any signficant coverage. The editor is "trying to get as many new articles created as possible." Logical Cowboy (talk) 15:52, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment (leaning towards deletion): I would think that the logical place to find independent coverage of television programs would be in the news, but a Google News search for "Call 2 Win" turns up absolutely nothing, and searching in archives turns up a mere one use of the term, completely unrelated to the show. This is a strong sign that there is no independent, significant coverage of the show. If the efforts of others to find independent sources are as fruitless as mine, I'll surely change my decision to delete. Chris the Paleontologist (talk • contribs) 23:04, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 19:36, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 19:36, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Article fails notability JayJay^{Talk to me} 03:12, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No coverage in reliable sources for this show which is just filler dreck. -- Whpq (talk) 16:42, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Just reads as a call-in contest which judging from the show's page, was not endorsed by CMT Canada outright and solely used paid commercial time to air, no better than any lawyer doing the same thing. Nate • (chatter) 00:35, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to One Foot in the Grave . Black Kite (talk) 19:21, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Mit einem Bein im Grab

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

Fails WP:GNG. I don't understand why people create what are clearly placeholder articles hoping someone else will expand the article to show notability. I looked at the German Wikipedia article, and it barely has anything in it, either. IMDb indicates this is a show with 13 episodes, i.e., it didn't last long. If someone wants to look at German sources to see whether notability can be demonstrated and the article expanded, knock yourself out. I'll probably get grief for nominating the article, but either the article will be deleted or it will be expanded into, uh, more than one sentence. Bbb23 (talk) 15:21, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge. The German article is a substub as well. The article should be merged into the article on One Foot in the Grave of which it is the German remake.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 15:42, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge I don't believe it. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 21:26, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 19:26, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 19:26, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect - Merge will not work here because there is no content to merge. This looks like just another typical new article for Dr. Blofeld who has created thousands of these type of sub-stub placeholder articles, with no references and no content to speak of. He should have his auto-patrolled rights revoked because too many of his articles are very short, unreferenced, no content, and suspect notability, and they need to be patrolled. Back-a-boot (talk) 05:49, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Redirect. Per Back-a-boot. Who writes articles like this, without any refs? Not good.--Epeefleche (talk) 03:56, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Black Kite (talk) 19:21, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Miglė Drąsutavičiutė

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

A former child actress who had lost notability since her post-Kid Nation stint. No present reliable sources and the notability tag has been since November 2008. ApprenticeFan ^work 14:55, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I cannot find anything significant about her, beyond cast listings and the link. Certainly not enough to establish notability. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 16:51, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:ENT. SL93 (talk) 00:38, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge or Redirect to List of Kid Nation participants for the same reasons at Laurel McGoff. For An Angel (talk) 18:59, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 19:22, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:23, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Mateusz Ponitka

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

WP:Crystal. Nice that he should be drafted by the NBA but by now the article fails to proof that he even played at senior level professional basketball (only college basketball) Night of the Big Wind _talk 13:57, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now. According to this sports site (which is run by USA Today) he plays in the Polish second division and he has not been selected in the NBA Draft yet. Fails WP:NBASKETBALL. S_peakF_ree ^(talk)_(contribs) 17:54, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 19:18, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 19:18, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 19:18, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and possible userfy. It may be worth saving this for the day when he gets drafted (if he does at all), but he's not notable yet. Jrcla2 (talk) 21:38, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 14:13, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Daily Dharti Rawalakot

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

Dummy newspaper, not a member of All Pakistan Newspaper Society (APNS), more like advertisement linked on the page Rawalakot. That is a reason this page is created. riz 13:55, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Keep There is a very long article about the newspaper on Urdu Wikipedia: ur:روزنامہ جنگ. Based on Google Translate and Urdu Wikipedia, it seems very likely that the newspaper is notable. --Stefan2 (talk) 18:26, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep this is the only news paper published in all of Rawalakot. It is not a dummy news paper. Thus since it is the only paper in this city it is clearly notable

Sudhan1216 (talk) 20:59, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is good paper and the only one. A paper does not have to be member of Pakistan society, as Kashmir is not Part of Pakistan.

EagleEye 01:52, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 18:47, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 18:47, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:24, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Derek Carroll

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

Notability seems marginal, sourcing is minimal and poor, and the subject has requested deletion (OTRS ticket:2012021110004387). No strong opinion on this, just passing on the request. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 13:55, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - He is a footballer who has made professional appearances, and so passes WP:NFOOTBALL. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 16:53, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- You state that he passes WP:NFOOTBALL yet you think it should be deleted........???? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:23, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - You're right; I'm not quite sure what I meant there - I think it was a mistake. Anyway, I mean to say that the article should be deleted because he does not pass WP:NFOOTBALL. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 11:50, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 16:53, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - never played in a fully-pro league (failing WP:NFOOTBALL), no significant coverage (failing WP:GNG). However, it should be noted that the consensus at this AfD in January 2012 is that BLPs requesting deltion is not a valid claim. Giant Snowman 16:56, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. On the grounds that the subject fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Mattythewhite (talk) 17:03, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 18:26, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 18:26, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - He did not play any matches for Liverpool [22], and the top leagues in Ireland and Northern Ireland are not considered fully professional - which means that the subject fails WP:NFOOTY. Mentoz86 (talk) 10:00, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails to meet our GNG or other guidelines.--Epeefleche (talk) 23:01, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Nehru Cup. Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:24, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

2012 Nehru Cup

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

Pretty much blank page for the 2012 competition which doesn't happen until August. Its too soon for there to be anything to say so this breaches WP:CRYSTAL. I tried redirecting for the timebeing but was reverted. Spartaz ^Humbug! 13:55, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Nehru Cup - The tournament is not significant enough to merit an article before the event (in the way that 2014 FIFA World Cup does), and there is nothing beyond an announcement of a date. Once the tournament starts, a full article will be appropriate, but not until then. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 17:01, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep it. Article is accurate and the event will take place soon, more information about the event will be added in a month or less. AIFF will release the information soon. No need to delete. keep it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 180.151.30.162 (talk) 20:03, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Please explain how that votes applies in the light if our policy on future events. Soon is next week, not August. Spartaz ^Humbug! 01:56, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 16:56, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Nehru Cup until such time as this competition happens and/or meets notability requirements. Giant Snowman 16:58, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Nehru Cup as there is no information which cannot be displayed there. When reliable sources are available (during or after the tournament), article can be re-created. Cloudz 679 18:05, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 18:20, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 18:20, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Nehru Cup: Haha the creator undid that edit. The AIFF have yet to announce the date. That date is just from some random newspaper from Bengal and Afghan media and sense this tournament is ran by the AIFF we should wait till they announce the date. Also the teams have not been announced yet. So far India is a given and the rest are just rumors. We should just wait for the tournament to be officially announced by the AIFF before making this article. --Arsenalkid700 (talk) 07:08, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Newport, Victoria#The Substation and delete history per consensus. Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:26, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Melbourne Substation

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

Unreferenced, promotional article about local community center Night of the Big Wind _talk 13:51, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Found one article from a local paper on Gnews which mentioned it in passing[23] but there is no evidence of notability. S_peakF_ree ^(talk)_(contribs) 18:29, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 18:17, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 18:17, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: No mentions in Trove, Newsbank and the usual suspects for newspapers online. Building does not appear on Victoria heritage listing or National Trust. --LauraHale (talk) 20:28, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable. Does not fall into that class of articles (e.g., cities) that are inherently notable if verified.--Epeefleche (talk) 22:34, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Newport, Victoria#The Substation. The article title is a little misleading. This community art centre is is variusly called "The Substation", "Newport Substation", or "Hobsons Bay Community Arts Centre". Local news coverage such as [24], and [25] indicate that although a standalone article might not be justified, its inclusion in the neighbourhood article is appropriate and a redirect to it would make sense. -- Whpq (talk) 16:56, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. henrik•talk 06:37, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fractal fraction

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

(Contested prod.) I get no relevant Google scholar hits or Google books hits. In fact, the only relevant Google hits seem to be to Domingo Gomez's blog. The subject of the article seems to be original research, not covered in any reliable sources. Sławomir Biały (talk) 11:50, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I created the article because I too could not find any information on the web. I tried several search terms: "recursive fractions", "continued fractions", "fractal fractions" and "fractions" (hopeless, only grade school sites). That does not mean that it does not exist only that I do not know the correct search term.
This seemed to me to be a reasonable mathematics topic in that the formula given seems possible. I hope that before it is deleted someone with a strong background in this branch of mathematics can tell us (me) what this is and how to name it.

Nick Beeson (talk) 12:35, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Sławomir Biały (talk) 11:55, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Wikipedia:WikiProject Mathematics has been informed. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 17:54, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. In addition to the nominator's comment on the absence of WP:RS, as I (just) wrote on the article talk page, in the illustration, a "simple" calculation shows that if the nth level has the numbers a and b, the "convergents" satisfy
$c_{n}=c_{n-1}{\begin{Bmatrix}{\times }\\{/}\end{Bmatrix}}(a b)$

depending only on the parity of n, the concept has no value. (This analysis falls under WP:CALC, even though it's my analysis.) — Arthur Rubin (talk) 17:25, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The concept in the book may not be the same as in the illustration, but it's not covered in scholarly literature. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:03, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. @Nick: I think there may be a misunderstanding involved here. For a topic to be suitable for a wiki page, it must satisfy notability criteria. The fact that you could find no information about this on the web does not mean there should be a wiki page on it, on the contrary. Tkuvho (talk) 18:07, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
…an iterative process of representing denominator as the sum of two integers… this obviously has to be deleted. Also, Fractal fraction probably constitutes a pure original research and does even not correspond to findings of the obscure book, mentioned as the source. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 19:51, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Google books search did not turn up any relevant results for the term and the source given seems to have a non-existent ISBN number. The article does not define the precise meaning of expression and, as pointed out above, when you take a reasonable guess as to what the convergents might be a quick calculation shows they don't actually converge. Plus my intuition tells me that if something this simple was useful it would have been known for hundreds of years as with infinite products and continued fractions.--RDBury (talk) 22:04, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
After viewing the YouTube video I'm sure that it's nonsense. I don't think only 132,000 views are adequate to qualify it as an Internet meme (although it is over 9500. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 01:45, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Either the YouTube video wasn't there or I missed it when I reviewed the article but having seen it I'm pretty confident it's a hoax similar to Dihydrogen monoxide. (The "Wau" in the video is just 1). It never explains in what sense the fractal fraction is equal to Wau but I think what is meant is that if you terminate at any step by putting 2 for each denominator you get 1. In light of this I think the article qualifies for Speedy deletion as a hoax, though I'm sure the article was created in good faith by someone who was taken in.--RDBury (talk) 05:52, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete (G1): A YouTube video is not a reliable reference, and this is an obvious WP:HOAX. -- 202.124.73.151 (talk) 11:07, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I agree that the video is an obvious hoax, although that was only added later. I think it's unlikely that the original source, Domingo Gomez's book, is a hoax. Sławomir Biały (talk) 11:44, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. From what I can tell about the book (as it doesn't have a real ISBN, it's hard to tell), it describes a genuine continued-fraction-like expression with coefficient taken from the coeeficients of a polynomial to produce a root of that polynomial. It's still not consideed interesting by most mathematicians, but there are real (i.e., peer-reviewed) mathematical papers which refer to the concepts in the book. It doesn't look at all like the "continued fraction" in the figure, and it appears (at first glance) to converge. The "continued fraction" in the book might have some mathematical interest, but we'd have to find a name for it. This concept is a non-notable hoax. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:34, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I am sure the article was created in good faith, but this simply doesn't meet our notability benchmark. Gandalf61 (talk) 12:47, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No reliable sources. Perhaps, if there is something noteworthy and sourced, it could be added to one or more of the articles on fraction, continued fraction, Stern-Brocot tree, etc. Virginia-American (talk) 14:18, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Perhaps one of the worst keep arguments for an article creator to claim is "I created the article because I too could not find any information on the web."--Milowent • ^hasspoken 14:34, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~. There is currently, Feb. 13, 2012, a viral video which has received 150,000 views in 5 days. That is 30,000 a day. I think that makes the video topic notable, and worthy of an article explaining what a "Fractal fraction" is. I did not know and could not figure it out, even though I completed eight math courses as an undergraduate, and have a doctorate in biophysics (a highly math dependent field). The video has earned 2,100 comments, yet none of the top 25 explained it. Since there are currently only three results for a Google search of "fractal fraction", one the video hoax, another a questionable self-published "book", and this article, I believe that this Wikipedia article is needed and reasonable. Many of the people who see the video will come to Wikipedia to find out more. After extensive rewriting this article will now tell them that it is a hoax.

I acted entirely in good faith. I edit frequently and have for six years. I try my best to be a good citizen. This is my last defense of this article. I have no intention of pursuing this any further. Nick Beeson (talk) 17:08, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have stricken the duplicate "keep", since you !voted already up above. -- 202.124.75.46 (talk) 09:02, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Just as a followup on the video, it was made by Vi Hart who normally uses her superpowers for good instead of evil and her YouTube channel has a substantial following with a number of number of math-themed (and non-hoax) videos. There are at least two WP articles that list one of her video as an external link, though using one as a reference is probably not a good idea.--RDBury (talk) 21:33, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It wasn't evil, just funny. But not notable. -- 202.124.75.46 (talk) 08:51, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ahem. 50,000 views is not a lot nowadays. This is not a notable hoax. Delete. Bearian (talk) 22:22, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Any actual useful mathematical concepts belong at Generalized continued fraction, but there is nothing useful in the hoax/joke video or in the article. Nor is there any indication (like a news story) that the joke/hoax is notable. -- 202.124.75.46 (talk) 08:51, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Good intentions are not a reason to keep an article that appears to fail pretty much every criterion. Wikipedia'd be a text equivalent of Youtube if it was acceptable, but fortunately is not an unfiltered repository of arbitrary trivia. — Quondum ^☏✎ 14:05, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:28, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Eugenija Sutkienė

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

Being a candidate does not give notability. In my opinion, the article does not show enough to pass WP:BIO. Peridon (talk) 11:19, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lithuania-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 17:47, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 17:47, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. She does not appear to meet the Wikipedia standards for notability as a politician or as a lawyer. "Weak" because I am unable to fully examine GHits that are not in English. Location (talk) 19:15, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:GNG both as a lawyer and a politician. The Lithuanian wiki article is little more than a CV. Valenciano (talk) 21:18, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Withdrawn by nominator.

Philippa Tattersall

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

Strikes me as WP:BLP1E for being the only woman to qualify for the British Commandos. Clarityfiend (talk) 10:33, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I would say the first woman ever to pass one of the toughest military selection processes in the world for one of the world's most famous military units is most certainly notable and will have lasting notability. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:37, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Seems to be a stack of significant coverage including outside of the UK and some recent newspaper coverage as added to the page Kernel Saunters (talk) 12:25, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep to 1000x oh god please., per above and Wikipedia:Systemic_bias#The_.22average_Wikipedian.22 (Wikipedia:WikiProject_Gender_Studies had a grand total of about 9 people sign up in the whole of last year ) - the lack of coverage on issues affecting women is not for lack of stuff outside Wikipedia but a problem with Wikipedia itself having quite a specific cultural bloc of editors . Philippa Tattersall was a groundbreaking, suffragette moment for the UK that should go down in the history books on the subject of Women in the military: Women in warfare and the military (2000–present):

To put this into perspective, a female royal marine is almost equivalent to if GI Jane was real and an american had passed the SEAL training course (the original commandos and not a general purpose group like american marines[26][27][28][29] though green beret commando is probably more the US equivalent and SBS is more equivalent to SEALs but the catch 22 there is that those are recruited from people with prior experience, e.g. a woman who is not allowed to fight can never be even given a chance...)

To this day despite her qualifications she is still not allowed to engage in a combat role despite having proven she is capable of it, a major reminder of the psychology[30] of gender roles and the possible male prejudices affecting teamwork, through no fault of the female, being considered just as important an issue as capability: Women in combat [31].

It's not just a one off thing, a year later the Telegraph did a followup article on how... well: "being a woman meant that, once she completed the course, she could only enter the Royal Marines as part of the band. "And to be honest," she says, "that didn't really appeal to me." Instead, she returned to her old job at the Army Foundation College in Harrogate, where she is a platoon commander. Among her tasks there is putting her young charges through the Army training course, which includes rolling a lorry tyre up and down a hill. recently voted "Woman of the Year" by Good Housekeeping magazine."[32](9 Jan 2003). She's happy and making the best of a bad situation as you do which is cool, but how fucking depressing is that for the idea of equal rights on gender for humanity? There have been people who've literally went to another country to join up because of the discrimination.

--Mistress Selina Kyle ^{(Α⇔Ω ¦ ⇒✉)} 13:42, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 11:37, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 11:37, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 11:37, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I've never subscribed to this theory that anyone who achieves any kind of record is instantly made non-notable because it's a BLP1E. But if you insist on disregarding all the news stories about becoming a commando made at the time, there's more then enough coverage after the event to meet the notability criteria. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 16:27, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment; thirteen indepth stories from reliable sources; plus (at this time) 1,700 mentions from mixed sources. That being said Angelo Zawaydeh has 13,800 mentions in mixed sources (many major reliable news sources), but was deleted. I know that such reasoning is under WP:OTHERSTUFFEXIST, however given my experience such an AfD should be mentioned. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 17:55, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Withdraw nomination. There are sufficient follow-up issues and resulting media attention to erase my doubts. Clarityfiend (talk) 22:32, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Winx Club#Characters. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 14:12, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Trix

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

Article about a set of fictional characters. No evidence that these characters are in themselves notable. Sparthorse (talk) 10:05, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP and MERGE with original article The material in The Trix article is poorly written and overlong. It needs to be edited down, some references added, and then transferred, not deleted. I Googled "Trix(Winx)" and got 367,000 hits. That is a lot of interest. I have also made these comments on The Trix talk page, but User Sparthorse wants to delete the article before either I, or anyone else, can do any work on any of it. And make no mistake -- this article needs a lot of work. I am seriously tempted to let him delete it, thereby saving myself a lot of work, but that's a little too selfish -- the Trix are a topic of considerable interest to Winx fans. Furthermore, Winx is itself of far broader interest than mere fan enthusiasm because it was developed and first shown in Italy, partly as a reaction against Disney Italy, the Italian subsidiary of the US-based Disney organization (I added some reliable, scholarly references about this to the Talk page of The Trix). In addition, Winx adopts the manga/anime plot device of creating a group of female opponenets or enemies, called The Trix, who fight the heroines (the Winx girls). The Trix are older and more malicious than the younger and more innocent Winx heroines, so the story has a distinct moral flavor to it (see those references). So I am trying to explain some of the issues raised by the Winx Club and their enemies, The Trix. Hence I urge that this article be revised and then merged with the parent article. Deletion will simply erase a lot of useful material needed for revising the article, and that is counterproductive. Timothy Perper (talk) 10:55, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but merge and/or redirect. There is no need for a separate, break-out article from Winx Club. Plenty of room left on that page.
Note to closing admin, if it's a keep: just redirect to Winx Club#The Trix. --Uncle Ed (talk) 19:28, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect. - No indication that these characters are in any way notable. All of the "sources" (inline links) are to forums and other SPSs or copyright violations on youtube and the like. - SummerPhD (talk) 02:57, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 17:40, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 17:40, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or redirect to Winx Club#Characters, which already does the job. Before there is an article about The Trix, there should be a List of Winx Club characters article where info about fictional groups can be expanded. Material should ONLY be spun out then when there is sufficient non-trivial real-world info (none here, just plot and in-universe details, nothing really to merge). – sgeureka ^t•c 08:39, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep; nomination withdrawn with no delete !votes. Rlendog (talk) 18:17, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hot Adult Top 40 Tracks number-one hits of 1996

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

This is only a list of songs that hit a specific top 40 list in 1996. There's nothing here to show that this holds any notability or significance. To quote WP:NOT, "Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information." Tokyogirl79 (talk) 08:52, 12 February 2012 (UTC)Tokyogirl79[reply]

Keep, number one singles are a reasonably defined topic per WP:SALAT. There is also a huge precedent that lists of number-one singles are acceptable — ones exist for Hot 100, Hot AC, Hot Country Songs and nearly every Billboard chart. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 18:10, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Not to sound petulant, so lists of weeks of every single Billboard top 40 list is notable for an encyclopedic entry? It just sounds kind of redundant, to be honest. The songs have a category for being top 40 tracks ([Category:Billboard Hot Adult Top 40 Tracks number-one singles]), so it's just a little overly repetitive. If we need to list them by year, wouldn't it be better to have a category specifically for the number one hits of 96 rather than an article that just lists them week by week?Tokyogirl79 (talk) 07:14, 13 February 2012 (UTC)tokyogirl79[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 17:37, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 17:37, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The list is notable enough to get coverage elsewhere. You read about a song, it mentions how long it was on this list. I added a link to the template AdultTop40Tracks which all other articles like this were already linked to apparently. Odd someone left one out. Dream Focus 16:22, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, Most Billboard Charts list them #1 hits week by week. Is there a problem? It's an useful and specific entry. I'll be adding soon the list of Hot Adult Contemporary #1 hits for 1997.
Withdrawing nomination. I still don't see where a category template wouldn't be more appropriate, but I suppose that listings of every top listing ever made everywhere on earth has complete and total notability and should have lists made of them.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 05:37, 15 February 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 delete. JohnCD (talk) 08:38, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Victim of peace

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

This is an orphan which is essentially unsourced, about a non-notable expression which the editors of the article didn't even manage to identify. Only two of the references mention it at all, but neither of them actually say what it means and neither is reliable. The fact is that this phrase was used by Shimon Peres to describe Yitzhak Rabin, who was a victim of Jewish terrorism (exactly the opposite of what is claimed here). Anything worth reporting could be added to Yitzhak Rabin. It might have later been aped by some activists for their own purposes, but frankly who cares? Zero^talk 07:19, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Even if it were well-sourced it would still run afoul of WP:Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Talk about the issue in articles on the events, the expression does not need its own article. BigJim707 (talk) 12:52, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The article claims that this expression is "a euphemism ascribed by the Israeli right-wing politicians to the Israeli left-wing politicians", but offers no evidence that either the left uses the expression, or that the right suggests that they do so. A Google search for the term in connection to the Palestine-Israel conflict leads mainly to this article and mirrors; the only actual victims so described are Rabin, as noted above, and the Sea of Galilee. A totally meritless article about a non-existent concept, which does not even merit the description of "neologism" since nobody has ever, apparently, used it in the sense suggested here. RolandR (talk) 19:28, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per RolandR. There's little evidence that this term is even used, let alone has any significance. --He to Hecuba (talk) 20:26, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per RolandR. FurrySings (talk) 02:39, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:40, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:40, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Palestine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:40, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. & others. No indication of notability.--JayJasper (talk) 21:52, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Bergvliet and delete history per consensus. Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:31, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sweet Valley Primary School

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

Non-notable school. My attempts at redirects and speedy deletions keep getting reverted. The Mark of the Beast (talk) 07:07, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:38, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:38, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Primary schools are not generally notable, and the article does not demonstrate any special notability for this school. - htonl (talk) 21:04, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does not appear to satisfy WP:ORG. Edison (talk) 21:59, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect. Convention with schools such as this one is, as I understand it, that they do not generally warrant a stand-alone article. Appears to be non-notable, given the lack of substantial multiple coverage in RSs in gnews and gbooks. It does exist, and has run-of-the-mill coverage as reflected in its 3 gnews hits, but that does not suffice.--Epeefleche (talk) 21:19, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. JohnCD (talk) 08:37, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Belcamp bowl

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

Prodded article, but it had been IAR-speedied earlier. Article about a football game, no indication of where it has been played and at what level. Delete. Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 06:06, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The incomprehensibility of this article means that if it's a suitable article topic (which I highly doubt), it will need such thorough rewriting that the present article won't help at all and (by its status as a blue link) will make it less likely that someone will rewrite it. Nyttend (talk) 06:31, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete, db-group, just like last time. Either that or the inevitable SNOW delete. Also delete BBFA by the same user if it magically passes speedy. Zero Google hits outside of wiki pages. Hairhorn (talk) 16:28, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:38, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no sources provided, seems "fandom-ish"--Paul McDonald (talk) 21:22, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per Hairhorn. cmadler (talk) 10:32, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not quite clear what this is about or why it should be considered notable, and I wasn't able to determine notable RS coverage. New user created it -- perhaps someone wants to drop by his page and give him some pointers.--Epeefleche (talk) 06:57, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. henrik•talk 18:48, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of the Gods

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

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

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

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

There are no links within the article to demonstrate notability, IE reliable non-trivial secondary sources. I've searched and found none. The developer still has a web presence, which worked fine an hour ago but now doesn't want to work for me. Regardless, the Kickstarter funding attempt failed (which in itself was just to generate a high-quality trailer to pitch to publishers) and I think enough time has passed to say that the sourcing will not become available until something tangible is released by the developers. Someone another 05:00, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) Someone another 05:02, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This is a case of WP:TOOSOON since the game hasn't been released yet and there's no concrete date beyond sometime in 2012. I wasn't able to find any reliable and independent sources to show that this game meets the notability guidelines required for something that hasn't been released yet. If it does get made it's likely that it'll get publicity, but at this point in time there just isn't anything independent or reliable to back up the claims in the article. The only hits that come back about this game appear to be mirrors of Wikipedia and primary sources such as the Steel Toe website. As cool as this game sounds, it's a delete per WP:CRYSTAL.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 06:03, 12 February 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 delete. --Kinu ^t/_c 23:06, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Brunei Airport Highway

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

Contested prod. Unsourced, with no significant coverage found. Having an airport at one end of it doesn't seem sufficient to justify an encyclopedia article. Michig (talk) 21:55, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Brunei-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:59, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:59, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note. On the maps that I have found, none of the major roads in this area appear to have this name.--Michig (talk) 17:21, 30 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) 02:18, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and expand, and rename if necessary. 218.250.159.25 (talk) 21:19, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Why does it belong in an encyclopedia, and if we rename it, what should it be called?--Michig (talk) 07:50, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, B music ian 04:17, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails GNG. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ravendrop (talk • contribs) 19:19, 12 February 2012‎ (UTC)[reply]
Delete: As best I can tell, this is a very short road that leads from a roundabout on Berakas Highway into Brunei International Airport. It is not marked on google maps with a name, and google street view is not available to verify it, but its the only candidate I can see. As such, this existing stub is more confusing than helpful, I'd delete and perhaps redirect to Brunei International Airport.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 15:13, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WP is not a catalog of all paved roads. R. S. Shaw (talk) 08:26, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As non-notable, and per Shaw.--Epeefleche (talk) 19:39, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete all. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 14:22, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

After the close of this AfD, the article 2013 BCS National Championship Game was userfied, after which is was moved back to main space after a short period of time. The consensus on this AfD to delete this particular article is much weaker than the other articles. It should also be noted that this game is the only game on this AfD which is part of the current season, a situation that I am unsure of if all those who argued to delete were aware of. Therefor, if seeking deletion of the article, it would be prudent to run a new AfD for the article, rather than to seek deletion per speedy deletion criterion G4. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 11:37, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

2013 BCS National Championship Game

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I don't see why we need these pages sitting here for another year or two years or three years. Contested prod (the first one). ... discospinster _talk 03:13, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:TOOSOON and judging from the always tenuous status of the BCS, may never be. This article will be fine to wait until December 2012. Nate • (chatter) 04:58, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: we can expect that they'll happen, but just like Tropical Storm Alberto (2012), which we also expect will happen, there's nothing substantial to say about these games. Nyttend (talk) 06:29, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: While we're at it, I added several articles of the same nature created by the same author. De FaultRyan 18:02, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:35, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete overzealous article creation. I could see leaving 2013 because it's the next one, or making it a redirect to BCS National Championship Game. But if it stays, the "past-tense" text in the article needs to be modified since it is a future event.--Paul McDonald (talk) 21:24, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per other editors. It seems that the creator sort of wants to "be the first" to claim article creation on ones that will assuredly be eventually made. This is not uncommon practice among novice editors who want to break the news, so to speak. Jrcla2 (talk) 21:52, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all - I can assume the user started them with good intentions, but it is soon. In certain events, the championship games may never happen. SwisterTwister talk 22:16, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Do you know something the rest of us don't? Clarityfiend (talk) 23:10, 12 February 2012 (UTC) [reply]
Keep all-2013 BCS National Championship Game is less then 11 months away why would you delete it? The pages were made because of other editers crying about dead links. They are key start up articles that will have tons of pages linked to them. dont meet any reasons for deleting it is WP:OVERZEALOUS and users here have said it will be needed Wikipedia is a work in progress WP:WIP there is no guidelines of how soon to start working on a sports season that I have found and what does deleting it do it dont help anything to delete it WP:DDH Theworm777 (talk) 09:27, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Take a look at WP:CRYSTAL; the key answer to when you can start working on a sports season is "not until there are reliable sources discussing that season". A better solution to dead links (really? is there any page that already links to 2015 NCAA Division I FBS football season other than through Template:NCAA football season navbox?) would probably be to create the pages as redirects until there's actually something to be said about these seasons. cmadler (talk) 14:59, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Just added sources and the logo for it. Theworm777 (talk) 10:08, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all except 2013 BCS Championship game. I'm neutral on the 2013 game (though if kept, it needs to be rewritten into future tense), because it is the very next occurrence, is scheduled, has sources (more could be added, I'm confident), and will undoubtedly be notable. cmadler (talk) 10:47, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WP:DELREASON

Myths and facts about deletion
Myth: "Bad" articles get deleted in order to save space on Wikipedia.
Fact: On average, with all the discussions that take place, the process of getting an article deleted actually takes up more storage space than the article itself. Besides, once deleted, the discussion that led to the deletion remains permanently, and administrators still have access to the article. The real purpose of deletion is to restrict the encyclopedia to encyclopedic content. Theworm777 (talk) 11:30, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment that's not a reason to keep the article. However, the lack of sources, notability, and substance are reasons to delete. (Like your enthusiasm, tho!)--Paul McDonald (talk) 17:28, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: You're correct that the purpose of deletion is to restrict the wiki to encyclopedic content. I have difficulty, though, imagining how articles that are substantially empty meet the standards of encyclopedic content. It would be one thing to have them sitting in your userspace waiting for deployment, but until we can find something for the articles other than "it's going to happen", they don't belong in the mainspace. ... discospinster _talk 17:44, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Reply Wikipedia is a work in progress yes alot more needs to be added and that takes time but, I wont waste much of my time on a page that could be deleted. Theworm777 (talk) 18:07, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all except 2013 BCS Championship Game. WikiProject College football's working rule of thumb here for future articles is not to create articles for anything beyond the next, upcoming season. 2013 BCS Championship Game is part of the 2012 season, which is next on tap. Everything else here is too far out right now. Once the 2012 season starts at the end of the summer, it's then okay to start articles for the 2013 season. We're more than a year off from needing anything for the 2014 and 2015 seasons. Jweiss11 (talk) 15:31, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There was not a consensus on "WikiProject College football's working rule of thumb here for future articles is not to create articles for anything beyond the next, upcoming season." see 2 of the comments from Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_College_football#Request_for_Comment:_Material_on_future_football_seasons

"I don't believe there is anything in Five Pillars that arbitrarily limits articles to one season in the future in cases where there is verifiable information from independent sources for an article like 2015 Michigan Wolverines football season. The key point IMO is whether a future season "would merit an article if the event had already occurred." If the answer is yes, we can change consensus from the past and avoid the practice of creating temporary holding articles. We first need to address whether the seasons are notable, we can then worry about behaviors in past AfDs." by User:Bagumba
"I feel that these multi-year horizon future season schedule articles should exist if there are WP:RS that provide content in need of being summarized. I believe that individual future season articles should exist when partial schedules, partial recruit commitments, and a modicum of news exists. I don't believe we should set a rule limiting our horizon to one year out although generally this will be the case." by User:TonyTheTiger
The 2 comments above are from Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_College_football#Request_for_Comment:_Material_on_future_football_seasons Theworm777 (talk) 16:26, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Key phrase from the above comments: ...where there is verifiable information from independent sources. cmadler (talk) 16:52, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The second comment above, from TonyTheTiger, is about another type of article, e.g. Notre Dame Fighting Irish football future schedule, that spans from the upcoming year out further into the future. These are not articles that begin more than a season out, which is what the rule of thumb addresses. Jweiss11 (talk) 17:19, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There is "verifiable information from independent sources." on all of the 2013-15Big East pages, 2013-14BCS championship game pages and 2013 NCAA Division I FBS football season pages so farWikipedia is a work in progress.WP:WIP For 2014 NCAA Division I FBS football seasonand 2015 NCAA Division I FBS football season why would we delete pages that will be needed and added to as info on them comes in if there is nothing on the pages that need sources(no laws or rules are being broke) right now? WP:WIP Theworm777 (talk) 18:56, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The reason is because there is nothing of encyclopedic worth to have an article about the 2015 Big East season right now. This is an online encyclopedia, not a web host of "things that will happen." Why isn't there an article for United States presidential election, 2084? By your rationale, there should be. Jrcla2 (talk) 19:25, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There is stuff of "encyclopedic worth to have an article about the 2015 Big East season right now" once Navy Joins the Big East in 2015 they will start having a Championship game in the 2015 season. There will more very soon also. But your example is 70 years away comment not with-in 4 years like all of this is. Theworm777 (talk) 19:45, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Theworm777, you are right that there is encyclopedic content right now about things on the 2015 horizon. The relevant questions are where does that content belong and is there really enough of it out there yet to warrant framing out 2015-specific articles. Can't we sufficiently cover this stuff with a few blurbs at Big East Conference and Navy Midshipmen football? Jweiss11 (talk) 20:32, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Jweiss11,Yes we can "sufficiently cover this stuff with a few blurbs at Big East Conference and Navy Midshipmen football" and yes 2014 and 2015 may be too far ahead to do much more to them at this time but there is not any reason to lock/delete them is there? When stuff can be added as there is verifiable information from independent sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Theworm777 (talk • contribs) 20:48, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Theworm777, the reason not to have these future season articles more than one year out is that they will sit for too long as near-empty shells with a schedule, perhaps, and not much more. Jweiss11 (talk) 22:59, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Four years, 70 , it doesn't matter, it's all the same – especially considering that these articles go against WP:CFB consensus that season articles are not to be written more than one college football season in advance. Additionally, you are arbitrarily deciding a cutoff as to when articles can be written in advance. It is your own whim that 70 years is too far away yet 4 is acceptable. Says who? Last time I checked, one year in advance is the accepted, consensus time frame. Jrcla2 (talk) 20:11, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This season is 2012 (spring ball starts soon) next season is 2013. Also there was no consensus WP:CFB that season articles are not to be written more than one college football season in advance. I am not "arbitrarily deciding a cutoff as to when articles can be written in advance". I use "if there is verifiable information from independent sources." of "encyclopedic worth to have an article about. Like stuff 70 years away will not have and stuff with-in 4 years will in most cases. Theworm777 (talk) 20:29, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Again, I suggest that you (Theworm777) might want to take a look at WP:CRYSTAL, which addresses exactly this issue. You're putting an awful lot of time into articles that have few or no sources and will eventually be entirely rewritten. Instead, why not consider improving one of the more-than-one-hundred high- and top-priority college football articles that are stubs or start-class? For example, a lot of past season articles are little more than a stub of text and a mess of tables, with little or no sourcing! cmadler (talk) 19:38, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have looked at WP:CRYSTAL and these items fit under what is appropriate there from what I see there:

WP:CRYSTAL
Wikipedia is not a collection of unverifiable speculation. All articles about anticipated events must be verifiable, and the subject matter must be of sufficiently wide interest that it would merit an article if the event had already occurred. It is appropriate to report discussion and arguments about the prospects for success of future proposals and projects or whether some development will occur, if discussion is properly referenced. It is not appropriate for editors to insert their own opinions or analyses. Predictions, speculation, forecasts and theories stated by reliable, expert sources or recognized entities in a field may be included, though editors should be aware of creating undue bias to any specific point-of-view. In forward-looking articles about unreleased products, such as films and games, take special care to avoid advertising and unverified claims (for films, see WP:NFF). In particular:

Individual scheduled or expected future events should only be included if the event is notable and almost certain to take place. Dates are not definite until the event actually takes place. If preparation for the event is not already in progress, speculation about it must be well documented. Examples of appropriate topics include the 2012 U.S. presidential election and 2020 Summer Olympics. By comparison, the 2028 U.S. presidential election and 2036 Summer Olympics are not appropriate article topics if nothing can be said about them that is verifiable and not original research. Avoid predicted sports team line-ups, which are inherently unverifiable and speculative. A schedule of future events may be appropriate if it can be verified. As an exception, even highly speculative articles about events that may or may not occur far in the future might be appropriate, where coverage in reliable sources is sufficient. For example, Ultimate fate of the universe is an acceptable topic. Theworm777 (talk) 18:29, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There is not 1 reason good wikipedia reason given here to delete anything from the 2012 or 2013 football seasons here at all. There is verifiable information from independent sources." of "encyclopedic worth to have an article about on all of the 2012 and 2013 season pages. Yes there is not much on the 2014 or 2015 seasons yet. Theworm777 (talk) 18:29, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all Nonsense to have articles beyond next year's season.--GrapedApe (talk) 03:47, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all per WP:CRYSTAL. The 2012 seasons haven't even happened yet, no point in having articles for 2013 seasons. There isn't even any information in these articles, they are just blank, boilerplate frameworks waiting for information. Wait at least a year before re-creating the 2013 ones. —SW— ^comment 16:04, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all per Jrcla2 and Scottywong. 71.246.200.190 (talk) 01:10, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all as premature and ultimately unhelpful (except perhaps the first one). A compromise would be to just redirect every article to an appropriate target e.g. 2013 BCS National Championship Game to BCS National Championship Game and 2014 Big East Conference football season to Big_East_Conference#Football. Pichpich (talk) 16:00, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all except 2013 BCS National Championship Game the 2013 game will happen at the end of the 2012 season, and is the only event on this list that isn't flirting with WP:CRYSTAL status. De FaultRyan 16:49, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all as a case of WP:CRYSTALBALL. Mt king ^(edits) 06:15, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Theworm777 (talk) 19:54, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the BCS title game article as that is for this season (played in early 2013, but for the 2012 season, thus called 2013 championship game) and delete rest per WP:CRYSTAL.--Giants27(T|C) 21:23, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There was not proposed deletion notices on half of the items listed here, all the articles that had them, they were removed from before the 7 days was up. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Theworm777 (talk • contribs) 07:23, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Proposed deletion is only for articles that the nominator thinks will be non-controversial to delete. If a PROD is contested, or if the nominator expects that it would be contested, it comes to a deletion discussion (this). cmadler (talk) 12:49, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all. Per Crystal. No bar to recreation as that becomes appropriate -- which no doubt will first become appropriate w/the 2013 game.--Epeefleche (talk) 07:20, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. The issue of merging can be discussed on the article's talk page. Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:38, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Bathroom emergency pullstring

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

Tinton5 (talk) 03:04, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My reasoning was to create a page and I could have gone elsewhere with this, but, I like the feedback. Since I work in the health care field, I see this device everywhere, and I just could not find it on here. I typed in everything but Nurse call button, which was evidently created in 2010, and this device is not just found near a patient's bed (hence bathroom in the title, but I like the general term "nurse call switch" or "button". It was my error for not putting in a reason for this discussion in the first place. Thank you all for your assistance. Tinton5 (talk) 02:31, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I can find references for this (I found a couple of news articles already), but it's admittedly pretty slight. Merge with Burglar alarm? Allens (talk) 04:26, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I'm thinking that this would be perfect to merge into either pull string or bell pull since it's rather similar to both of them. It effectively serves as a bell pull for all practical purposes, to be honest. You pull it, the alarm rings in another room, and a nurse answers. As its own article? I'm not sure if it really warrants an article to itself, however.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 04:46, 12 February 2012 (UTC)tokyogirl79[reply]
I'd think before pulling the plug on this article it might be helpful to look at some of the (presumably extant?) guidelines from various well-recognized "authorities" such as Joint Commission that led to these things being put in (and that presumably laid out their rationale and expense justification.) I am not in a position personally to presently access (I'm traveling) this suggested RS material. FeatherPluma (talk) 04:50, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Tinton didn't say way it should be deleted (see WP:NOREASON). --Uncle Ed (talk) 19:38, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Good point, although it is perfect for a merge with Panic button... I also note that Tinton5 is actually the one who created the article? Perhaps Tinton5 can clarify this? Will drop a message at Tinton5's talk page...

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:34, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:34, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge elsewhere: Not enough material here for it's own article. Merge to bell pull as suggested above. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 21:16, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I found a better one: Panic button. Just put in a mention of fixed-location ones with a pull switch plus that a monitoring location need not be remote. Just include "see also" or other links to pull string and bell pull. The reference someone has helpfully found can be moved also. Allens (talk) 21:33, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: take a look at the article's history. Tinton5 wrote in the first edit summary that he created the article as a test, thus qualifying the article for speedy deletion per CSD G2 (in addition to G7 by nominating his own article). So normally I'd say speedy delete, but a merge actually does seem appropriate here. Chris the Paleontologist (talk • contribs) 23:34, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - As requested by the article's creator. No indication this is a notable topic. The "source" added mentions the subject, but neither discusses it nor supports the content it is cited for. After that, there is nothing sourced and, therefore, nothing to merge. - SummerPhD (talk) 02:48, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion per creator's request can no longer be applied here because it has now been substantially changed by another user. Tatterfly (talk) 18:45, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Yes and no on the move to panic button. In television shows you see it used more in panic situations, but the reality is that most of the time the button is pushed for less emergent issues such as a patient needing help off the toilet or a change of clothes (if they didn't make it to the bathroom in time). I'm open to either, though.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 04:14, 13 February 2012 (UTC)tokyogirl79[reply]
Comment. Nurse call button would also appear to be immediately related. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 15:52, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I would agree to merge the content to Nurse call button, since it is related. Tinton5 (talk) 02:31, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is something similar to but distinct from a nurse call button, so it does not belong merged into that article. These are found in some places where nurses are not always found, such as senior activity centers, fitness centers, and even some places or worship. It could be considered a form of a panic button, but it is not a typical one, so its content does not belong in that either. The article has no sources now, but I'm sure there are some about it, such as those describing how they work, studies on their usefulness, or perhaps laws mandating them in certain places. In some facilities where I have worked, these are tied in with the alert system for the nurse call buttons, but make a distinct sound. Tatterfly (talk) 05:01, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: what about the emergency help buttons installed in toilets on trains, intended mostly for use by people with disabilities? Not calling a nurse, but calling for help from train staff. Just wondered which of the various related articles these should be included in. PamD 08:37, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Just added some more info and sources, so this article meets the WP:GNG requirement. Tatterfly (talk) 18:43, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, nice job with adding sources and content. You actually changed my opinion about this topic now. I would like to say keep, since it has reliable sources implemented within the article. Thank you very much for helping out. But one thing, I feel somewhat funny about the article title. Should it be renamed to a technical name, if it has one? We should also create redirects as well, for those who may search for this term. WP:Naming conventions would be a nice guide. Tinton5 (talk) 22:51, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Mortal Engines Quartet. What to merge, if anything, can be discussed on the article's talk page. Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:54, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Traction City

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

Plot element from a series of novels, not independently notable (WP:GNG) for lack of substantial coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the author of the fictional work described. Not appropriate for a merger, as it consists only of excessive plot summary (WP:WAF). Sandstein 19:55, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Worth looking at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Municipal Darwinism for discussion of the sources. The journal source discussed at that AfD makes some mention of the wider traction cities concept, if only to provide context. Were we to retain content based on the coverage in that source (which I've argued over there we probably don't need to do: a paragraph or two in a parent article seems to be the appropriate weight for this material) then we certainly needn't split it over two articles (Traction City and Municipal Darwinism). Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 14:00, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 14:04, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 14:07, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 14:07, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Mortal Engines Quartet per WP:ATD. Jclemens (talk) 01:45, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Bryce (talk | contribs) 00:58, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Cut down and Merge to Mortal Engines Quartet - doesn't seem to be notable in its own right. Robofish (talk) 14:28, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L Faraone 02:52, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Please see my comment below. BigJim707 (talk) 12:54, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Mortal Engines Quartet. It may be searched for, so retaining a redirect is useful. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:43, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/Redirect into Mortal Engines Quartet, particularly since the series has more than one bad article. We don't know yet what of this excessive material may be relevant for a non-crufty World article. – sgeureka ^t•c 10:34, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Mortal Engines Quartet. Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:56, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Anchorage-in-Vineland

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

Plot element from a series of novels, not independently notable (WP:GNG) for lack of substantial coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the author of the fictional work described. Not appropriate for a merger, as it consists only of excessive plot summary (WP:WAF). Sandstein 19:56, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:26, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:26, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:39, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Mortal Engines Quartet per WP:ATD. Jclemens (talk) 01:45, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Bryce (talk | contribs) 00:55, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L Faraone 02:52, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and take a look at some of the other articles on this series. I know that fans love their favorite series, but it actually does a disservice to the work, the author, and to potential new fans when so much detail is gone into. BigJim707 (talk) 12:47, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Mortal Engines Quartet, particularly since the series has more than one bad article. We don't know yet what of this excessive material may be relevant for a non-crufty World article. – sgeureka ^t•c 10:32, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. JohnCD (talk) 08:34, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanksgiving (Malcolm in the Middle)

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

Non-notable and almost unintelligible Captain Infinity (talk) 02:51, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It may not be a new Tv show but this is one of the memorable episodes. Its not like every malcolm episode has its own article some deserve there own episode. List of pokemon some of them have there own article and its a cartoon which is not reality but more notable than malcolm. Whats the harm. Plus it hasn't been linked to List of malcolm in the middle episodes yet to make it more known.Shawn Worthington Laser Plasma (talk) 04:49, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Memorability" does not equal Notability. This episode has noting notable about it. As for "What's the harm?" please see Wikipedia:Other stuff exists. Finally, it is indeed listed in the List of Malcolm in the Middle episodes, and has a perfectly serviceable plot synopsis there. --Captain Infinity (talk) 20:11, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete "Type what I see and call it an article" is not a suggested editing style, and this show had seven Thanksgiving episodes, all not special, and this is no different. Nate • (chatter) 04:56, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - messy, awkward, rambling attempt at describing the plot of a not particularly notable episode of a comedy show that already has season-by-season breakdowns and synopses. Eddie.willers (talk) 14:58, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:32, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to List of Malcolm in the Middle episodes per WP:ATD. Jclemens (talk) 21:45, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please be sure to read the article before suggesting a merge. It's rambling and incoherent. There's nothing worth saving there. --Captain Infinity (talk) 00:55, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as mere plot WP:NOT#PLOT, nothing to merge to the LoE. – sgeureka ^t•c 09:41, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails to meet wp:N or wp:V, and I am not in favor of merging unsourced challenged material that seems like poorly written OR.--Epeefleche (talk) 07:08, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Mapping of Unicode characters. Black Kite (talk) 19:21, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Mapping of Unicode graphic characters

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

Delete. This article does a sort of list of character topics, with no sense of structure or completeness at all, let alone giving a good overview. Then, in Unicode, there is no concept of 'graphic character' at all (as I noted on the Talkpage earlier here). Unicode uses a lot of concepts related to 'characters', like say 'Format char'. 'Control char', even 'Code', but never ever 'graphic character'. Content of this (old) page is covered elsewhere. DePiep (talk) 00:30, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Notified creator [33]. -DePiep (talk) 00:35, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2012 February 12. Snotbot t • c » 02:25, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I still not have the faintest idea what step 3 is about, I tried it before and it did not invite me into anything (I thought I was lost) [34]. Intrerestingly, I do one or two TfDs a month, but AfD surprises me.

And to be clear: this is a botted response? Why should I read? A bot that does not know what it is talking about should be shut off. I am really pissed of that this message is brought to me, while the message is nonsense from A to ZX. And I will not be so 'helpful' (to a bot?) that I will go over to edxplain what the bot does. -DePiep (talk) 03:04, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, let me give you an explanation. WP:AFDHOWTO gives as Step 3 various things that you did not do. It is important that you do them. It doesn't understand that you understand why--it will not invite you--you just need to do them.--Prosfilaes (talk) 08:55, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Mapping of Unicode characters, useful information which should be preserved L Faraone 02:30, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Mapping of Unicode characters. There is no separate or specific mapping of graphic characters. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 08:40, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:29, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Chris Gethard. Black Kite (talk) 19:21, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Chris Gethard Show

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

Since there is no CSD criteria that fits, we are here. This is about an unsourced cable access TV show. Dennis Brown (talk) 02:02, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Chris Gethard, assuming that it's talking about the same person. -- WikHead (talk) 02:20, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see anything that indicates it is the same guy, and would be against redirection without some reference. Dennis Brown (talk) 02:55, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ambiguous indeed, and that's why I didn't redirect this myself. Both artles do however share and external link "thechrisgethardshow.com" that was added after your nomination. -- WikHead (talk) 03:13, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's the same guy. It should be left up. The show's a real phenomenon and Gethard has a lot of credits. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.152.47.146 (talk) 03:58, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Don't delete. This is a real show and it is hosted b chris gethard. The show is gainng notereity, and Gethard has been a featured guest on both Fallon and Conan. He also just published his second book, and is a longtime member of upright citizens brigade. Legitmate guy, legitimate show, legitimate wikipedia article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.236.77.15 (talk) 04:08, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Definitely the same guy, and I am aware this show living in England, so it is internationally known. There is no reason to delete this entry.

Redirect - not enough notability in content for a stand-alone article. Eddie.willers (talk) 15:00, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:28, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Gethard has a show every wednesday night that people are watching all over the nation. In response to this wiki debate, he just tweeted: "I love it and hope {the wiki page} never goes away.".....Why isn't it enough to have links to his website and the show stream itself? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.241.68.212 (talk) 00:16, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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