Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2012 February 2

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 1 February	3 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 Speedy Delete - WP:G3 (non-admin closure). Whpq (talk) 16:06, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Battle Elephants

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

I only found Wikipedia reprints. SL93 (talk) 23:53, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not taking a position on the content because I don't have time to search for sources in Russian right now (which is necessary for a Russian group, and helps overcome systemic bias, but if it's not kept, it should be redirected to War elephant as a plausible search term. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 00:11, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:39, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:40, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:40, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

G3 no proof found that it exists. If they've truly been around that long, at least one English source would surely exist. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 01:31, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Obviously, they had trouble getting over the Alps ... Clarityfiend (talk) 04:07, 4 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. Xavexgoem (talk) 15:56, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nishprapanchaya

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

Zero in gnews, 1 passing reference in gbooks (at best), zero refs, a dictionary def. Tagged for notability and lack of refs for well over a year. Created by an SPA. Epeefleche (talk) 20:40, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (or perhaps Move to Wiktionary) - this is a serious, good (and accurate) definition of a term found in Hindu mantras and songs. Should certainly be in Wiktionary. There might be a case for merging it to one of the Hinduism articles, too. Chiswick Chap (talk) 21:05, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If there were RS sourcing, that would certainly sound reasonable. Or content could be created at either target with RS sourcing (thereby avoiding the work and delay (tossing it in w/the 16,000 other merge-pending articles) involved in the merge process).--Epeefleche (talk) 21:13, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:57, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:57, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - It's unsourced, so I'm not convinced taking it over to Wiktionary would be aceptable. -- Whpq (talk) 17:36, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

To your point, I'm not sure of how Wiktionary works, but it is not acceptable for wikipedia under our policy at WP:V, as it fails to meet WP:CHALLENGED.--Epeefleche (talk) 18:23, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wiktionary's inclusion criteria looks like it needs sourcing. -- Whpq (talk) 18:44, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks.--Epeefleche (talk) 20:02, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - it appears that this term may be useful for reference work and is within the scope of what this Wikipedia is all about. We need articles on these terms, however poor sourcing may be. Of course it may be better to find a bigger article to merge it into. Wikid ^as© 16:30, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Without proper referencing, it fails the core policy of wp:v. And we generally, to whpq's point, handle dic defs at wiktionary.--Epeefleche (talk) 16:38, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've added citations, some quotations and translations (sorry about all the polysyllabic latinates). More coming when I have a moment. But it does look more keepable already. Chiswick Chap (talk) 17:15, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 23:11, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Suitable encyclopedic content. We can do more explanation that a dictionary can. Now suitably referenced DGG ( talk ) 05:52, 3 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 Tweet (singer). King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 20:02, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Love, Tweet

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

Poorly sourced page about an album which seems like it's never going to be released (the article has been here since 2007). ×º°”˜`”°º×ηυηzια×º°”˜`”°º× 16:50, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:37, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete' - some mentions but not the coverage needed to establish this unreleased album as notable. -- Whpq (talk) 18:07, 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, Sandstein 23:05, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete vaporware album, no forthcoming reputable info. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 23:14, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:NALBUMS. Truthsort (talk) 00:22, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no significant coverage found in reliable sources; does not appear to meet WP:GNG or WP:NALBUM at this time. That said, a redirect to the artist's main page wouldn't be totally unreasonable, either. Gongshow ^Talk 10:00, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Didn't find coverage in reliable sources. Northamerica1000^(talk) 11:18, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Redirect to Tweet (singer). While the album fails WP:NALBUMS and WP:GNG, it wouldn't hurt to redirect to the singer's article. --B music ian 08:22, 9 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. A7. Drmies (talk) 04:46, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Melissa Navia

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

Non-notable actress. IMDb shows just a couple of minor roles, so the lack of RS's is to be expected. Nolelover ^Talk^·^Contribs 23:04, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:42, 3 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 speedily deleted by User:Drmies under criteria A7 - "Article about a band, singer, musician, or musical ensemble, which does not indicate the importance or significance of the subject". (non-admin closure). Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 22:43, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

FiL Straughan

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

Musician. Has three self published albums. Does covers of old soul singers. Article has been around since 2008. Reference in the article is by his agent. Unable to find any reliable references that are about him. I can find notices on performances or him being a judge at a local contest. Bgwhite (talk) 23:00, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Bgwhite (talk) 23:01, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. No claim of notability. Drmies (talk) 05:05, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

European institute of music

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

No indications that this particular organization meets the criteria for inclusion. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 22:40, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:29, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:30, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:30, 3 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 discussion closed as moot, article speedily deleted (G11) by Drmies. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 18:01, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sonorous Entertainment Inc.

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

Seems to fail WP:CORP, all sources provided are either self published press releases or their own website. Karl 334 ^{☞TALK to ME ☜} 22:08, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The label was "birthed in the heart of Dwayne Bigelow" etc. Blatantly promotional. G11 candidate? Tigerboy1966 22:12, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
- Yes--a successful one. Drmies (talk) 04:42, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:27, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:27, 3 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, non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 01:14, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Project Roxivia

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

Article has been speedy deleted 3 times before and has been put up again as G11 (I've removed that to bring it here). Original author is intent of it being here. I think best to have a full consensus of opinions as to the suitability of this page, then if consensus is to delete then we bury it once and for all or maybe offer userifcation Ronhjones ^(Talk) 22:07, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Poorly written, notability is not established, and only sources are youtube. JDDJS (talk) 22:10, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete- Unnotable game being developed by unknown game designers. No reliable third party sources exist. Fails WP:Notability in pretty much every way possible.Rorshacma (talk) 22:32, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:NFT Bazj (talk) 22:23, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. - Denimadept (talk) 23:03, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:CRYSTAL & per nomination. Shearonink (talk) 23:34, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per CSD A7 and G11; not notable and purely promotional. Is it in any way different from the article that's been speedied three times? CityO fSilver 23:44, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
User:Toddst1 has speedily deleted it per G11. CityO fSilver 00:23, 3 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. —Tom Morris (talk) 10:42, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Amazifier

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

I cannot find substantial, independent, RS coverage for this software product on gnew or gbooks. Tagged for notability since May. Created by an SPA. Epeefleche (talk) 21:59, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:26, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No RS significant coverage - only reference is to a non-english site which appears to be a blog. Created by an SPA as possible advert / promotional. Dialectric (talk) 16:45, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Not sure if the Itlaian source is a reliable one, but the review is rather short, and I can find no other coverage. -- Whpq (talk) 16:44, 8 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. —Tom Morris (talk) 10:42, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Q3 Technologies

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

The subject of the article appears to be a non-notable software company. The subject lacks significant coverage in reliable third party sources and fails the notability guidelines for organizations. Alpha_Quadrant ^(talk) 21:47, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:25, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:26, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:26, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Notability not established. Borders on advertising. VasuVR (talk, contribs) 02:19, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Another global diversified technology company that provides technology consulting, Mobile application development and Software Development services to the global IT Industry (i.e. just another IT outsourcing business) advertising on Wikipedia. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 22:18, 4 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. —Tom Morris (talk) 10:41, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Promethean Software Corporation

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

The subject of the article appears to be a non-notable software company. The subject lacks significant coverage in reliable third party sources and fails to meet the notability guidelines for organizations. Alpha_Quadrant ^(talk) 21:39, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:22, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:22, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

NOTEI am also nominating the following related pages because these are separate articles created for this business's products, and if the business is not notable, its products probably are not either.

- Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 18:07, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This business makes back office software for lawyers, for automating forms and tracking time for billing purposes. It's one of many such firms and products. I've heard of the time and billing software, myself. I can't think of any significant effects this business might have had on history, technology, or culture, and Google News appears not to know them. There's no reason why future students of American law practice would need to know of this business or its products. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 18:14, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I fully agree with you Ihcoyc. Those two articles should also be deleted. Alpha_Quadrant ^(talk) 04:48, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all of the above. WP:N and WP:NSOFT are there for a good reason. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 23:54, 6 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. —Tom Morris (talk) 10:41, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Global Issue

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

DICDEF, Essay, pick one. Doesn't establish the notability of the subject matter as a stand alone topic. Dennis Brown (talk) 21:22, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I found a similar article, Global issue that I turned into a redirect, which would be included I suppose. Dennis Brown (talk) 21:39, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not an encyclopedia article or a viable topic. Not sure what it is. Embarrassingly bad. Tigerboy1966 22:17, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
Delete Nonsense article. Not sure what this is ever trying to describe.
Delete Describing an "issue" that is global and limiting it to 8 is rather wp:OR. Also, I think a similar article was deleted a while back. Chris857 (talk) 03:00, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
delete dicdef --SupernovaExplosion (talk) 05:42, 4 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. —Tom Morris (talk) 10:41, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Preludesys

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

The subject of the article appears to be a non-notable software company. The subject lacks significant coverage in reliable third party sources and fails to meet the notability guidelines for organizations. Alpha_Quadrant ^(talk) 21:05, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:18, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:19, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete. It's obvious that this business is a lot like others, and I don't see a claim of minimal significance in here. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 18:18, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no indication of notability. . . Mean as custard (talk) 09:05, 10 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. —Tom Morris (talk) 10:41, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

PocketSensei

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

The subject of the article appears to be a non-notable software company. The subject lacks significant coverage in reliable third party sources and fails to meet the notability guidelines for organizations. Alpha_Quadrant ^(talk) 20:40, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete quite a few passing mentions for products, but nothing in depth. Plus the wikilink for the company's CEO just redirects back to the article, which is punishable by death in some jurisdictions. As always, I'm happy to change my mind if something decent turns up. Tigerboy1966 21:43, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
Delete: I found no significant coverage. SL93 (talk) 00:02, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:14, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:14, 3 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. —Tom Morris (talk) 10:40, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Lime Media Marketing

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

This marketing company lacks substantial RS coverage in gnews and gbooks. Created by an SPA. Epeefleche (talk) 20:13, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:11, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:12, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Lime Media Marketing is growing and has bright projections for 2010. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 22:30, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the subject of the article lack any coverage whatsoever in reliable third party sources and fails to meet notability guidelines for organizations. Alpha_Quadrant ^(talk) 02:56, 10 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. —Tom Morris (talk) 10:40, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Psicodreamics

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

I cannot find significant RS coverage of this on gnews or gbooks. Created by an SPA. Epeefleche (talk) 20:04, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The "official" site is the only mention I could find. Article has had three years to improve. Tigerboy1966 21:46, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:10, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:10, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the subject lacks any coverage whatsoever in reliable third party sources. It definitely fails the notability guidelines for organizations. Alpha_Quadrant ^(talk) 02:58, 10 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. —Tom Morris (talk) 10:39, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Olongapo News

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

Non-notable family newsletter failing WP:NOTABILITY. Created and Maintained by WP:SPA WP:COI accounts. They dont even have a "real" website, instead they are using Wikipedia as their "official Website page" see Basic Information in this section-> website. Wikipedia is NOT a vehicle for Advertising Hu12 (talk) 15:44, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Yutsi ^Talk/ Contributions 15:52, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, WP:NOTWEBHOST. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 16:07, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 17:19, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 17:19, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Wikipedia is not a web host. Spam. SL93 (talk) 23:45, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Wikipedia cannot be used for web hosting or as a vehicle to promote a non-notable newsletter. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 11:53, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Patent nonsense subject. Keb25 (talk) 13:20, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Ditto. --B music ian 08:25, 9 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 as Copyvio per the below. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 16:03, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dalit punjabi literature

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

Per WP:NOTHOWTO Dipankan ^{In the woods?} 14:25, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:38, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:39, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The content is completely copied and pasted from this blog. I tagged the article for speedy deletion as a copyvio. --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 15:15, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete has been tagged as a copyvio, the author must have copied and pasted from somewhere--Lerdthenerd wiki defender 15:16, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 19:49, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Christopher Mousa

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

This player fails WP:GNG and WP:FOOTYN. Malaysian Premier League is not top-tier. Cloudz 679 14:22, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Cloudz 679 14:24, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:38, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Mattythewhite (talk) 15:03, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect to Sabah FA. Can't find sources to establish notability per WP:GNG. —Tom Morris (talk) 17:22, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 09:14, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL GauchoDude (talk) 19:10, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom. Mr. Mousa has not received significant coverage or played in a fully pro league. As such, this article fails WP:GNG and WP:NSPORT. Sir Sputnik (talk) 23:28, 8 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. —Tom Morris (talk) 10:44, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Deep electronica

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

non-existent genre, request for sources, to establish notability, produced nothing. Semitransgenic _talk. 12:44, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:48, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It's not even an article. Just a couple of ambiguous sentences. No indication of wp:notability or even of existence of the topic. North8000 (talk) 14:21, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete One album is not a genre. Article claims the genre is "commonly referred to as "deep""- if it was commonly referred to as anything it would have reliable sources. Tigerboy1966 21:53, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
Delete just another made up name, no proof that the genre name is used by, well, anyone. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 23:00, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Agree with North8000. Delete tha mothafucka. C1k3 (talk) 06:29, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, considered early closing this one as CSD A1 when I saw the message on my talk page, it's just impossible to tell what sound the author is trying to describe. Can't find a single reliable source, and the SoundCloud group titled "deep electronica" welcomes people to "Add any tracks that don't fit into House, RnB, drum'n bass or other electronic genre" which supports the idea that this isn't a genre... - filelake shoe 09:40, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I'm not finding anything of substance on this topic such that it merits a separate article. The few passing mentions I located were not in reliable sources. Gongshow ^Talk 09:00, 8 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 List of The X Factor finalists (U.S. season 1)#Drew. (non-admin closure) Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{Let's talk}_{about my edits?} 18:48, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Drew (singer)

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

Talented singer didn't won the first season of The X Factor. Fails WP:MUSICBIO and really not notable who has no recording contract. ApprenticeFan ^work 12:34, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:40, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: A non-notable artist. Keep it as a redirect to the season concerned. werldwayd (talk) 21:05, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to The X Factor, no notability outside of it. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 23:01, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The finalists of American Idol get an article, why can't the same be for The X Factor? --Babar Suhail (talk) 04:19, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Why? This talented singer has no notability after losing The X Factor. Between these two, there are no deletion argument discussions. ApprenticeFan ^work 06:46, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect since she hasn't done anything since X-Factor, and everything in this article could be covered in the first season's article. If she picks up some notability outside of X-Factor in the future, we can reinstate the article. PCHS-NJROTC ^(Messages) 19:13, 8 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. —Tom Morris (talk) 10:44, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Colección de Oro

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

The album was only released in the United States, not entered into a chart (Billboard) or won an award (RIAA). Not have new songs, has the same songs as the album Pies Descalzos. The only active source is of the shopping site Amazon, compilation album no notoriety. Lucas S. ^msg 12:21, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Lucas S. ^msg 12:21, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Borrar per nom. (That's spanish for Delete.) Labels often issue compilations that never stand out on their own, and this is one of them. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 23:01, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete agree with the other users, album without notoriety. Maricorazon (talk) 17:05, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete clearly non-notable, fails GNG and SNGs. Cavarrone (talk) 09:27, 4 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. Lack of sources (only source is a dead link) also indicates a potential BLP problem, aside from notability. Xavexgoem (talk) 15:58, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Jwcurry

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

Unsourced biography of a living person. Notability per WP:AUTHOR dubious. bender235 (talk) 14:55, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I have nominated it for BLPROD, too. Dipankan ^{In the woods?} 15:43, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I didn't seem to notice that the article was created years back, so I have removed my PROD. Let's see if I can find any sources..... 15:45, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:27, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:27, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:27, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

This biography can be deleted under BIODEL in case there is no keep !vote. Still, relisting for a week just to be sure as the person exists. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Wifione ^Message 12:20, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this person lacks significant coverage in reliable third party sources and fails the notability guidelines for biographies. Alpha_Quadrant ^(talk) 03:00, 10 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. Xavexgoem (talk) 15:59, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Rana Shabbir Ahmad Khan

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

Seems not to meet WP:GNG. Sitush (talk) 14:19, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:25, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:25, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No indication of wp:notability. Since it has no content, nothing would be lost if wp:notability were to be established at a later date and the articl4e restarted. North8000 (talk) 16:58, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Being chairman of a bank with 357 branches, 5500 employees and a million customers is certainly an indication of notability. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:13, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Good point, but just clarifying, it is not refuting my point which was about indication of wp:notability in the article. North8000 (talk) 14:30, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:GNG and WP:V.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 20:37, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. How does this fail WP:V? The source in the article clearly verifies its content. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:13, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. This article didn't have an AfD template until today, so this discussion needs to be relisted to allow a week's discussion. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:06, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Agree that it needs to be relisted but I am also sure that it did have the template. I always check because I use Twinkle and it can barf sometimes (never has for me, but I've seen people say this). Maybe some weird db glitch? - Sitush (talk) 21:24, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This edit of yours removed the template. You probably still had a tab open with the previous version of the article and edited that rather than the then current version - I know I've been caught out like that several times. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:31, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Damn. That sounds possible. Sorry, folks. - Sitush (talk) 08:06, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep on the basis of Phil Bridger's argument the CEOs of very large companies are notable, even if the information is hard to find for some geographic areas and might require print sources. DGG ( talk ) 05:57, 2 February 2012 (UTC) .[reply]

Chairman, not CEO. "Chairman" is often a titular rather than executive position in Pakistan. Furthermore, surely this is inheriting notability from the company? If there is an article about the bank itself then just redirect/merge this one to that. - Sitush (talk) 08:06, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Agree, and would add that that distinction is not peculiar to Pakistan.--Epeefleche (talk) 23:25, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

oops, my error--but the actual status would have to be determined. Sometimes the chairman is the CEO. DGG ( talk ) 05:55, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's true. But it certainly isn't something I would assume. In the absence of such a showing.--Epeefleche (talk) 23:28, 10 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, Wifione ^Message 12:01, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Merge with Zarai Taraqiati Bank Limited. With so little detail I can't see this as a suitable independent article. A couple of sentences added to the article on the bank would cover the topic. Tigerboy1966 22:08, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
Delete. Fails to meet our notability guidelines.--Epeefleche (talk) 23:28, 10 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. —Tom Morris (talk) 14:04, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nikon AF Zoom-Nikkor 28-80 mm f/3.3-5.6G

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

I found nothing to show notability. This product fails WP:N. SL93 (talk) 13:22, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:50, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No indication of wp:notability. Too narrow to be an article. North8000 (talk) 17:01, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
merge Of course it's too narrow to be a separate article--even if it could technically meet the GNG (there might well be sufficient reviews) . But that does not mean it should be deleted, just merged into an article with other Nikon lenses of the same type (and the reviews if found, can be used as references there). There;'s never any reason to completely delete the information on a significant product from a famous company. For article content, notability is irrelevant, just WP:V--and therefore there is no policy based reason for deletion. DGG ( talk ) 05:55, 2 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, Wifione ^Message 11:59, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No indicaiton of wp:notability. Too narrow to be an article, and the content is unenclyclopedic product details. North8000 (talk) 12:41, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Or merge to appropriate product list. Nwlaw63 (talk) 21:03, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was A9, non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 19:49, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Back in Bu$ine$$

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

Lacks substantial RS coverage in gnews and gbooks, and Allmusic never heard of it. Zero refs. Epeefleche (talk) 22:58, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2012 January 26. Snotbot t • c » 23:13, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:52, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Finland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:00, 27 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?} 11:14, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, no proof that album exists. WP:PUTEFFORT fail. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 23:02, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. with no prejudice against speedy renomination (non-admin closure) B music ian 08:28, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Panselinos (TV Series)

(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)

Relisting for AfD. No evidence of notability. Apparently from a Greek source but no Greek article is shown to exist. Unreferenced. Cloudz 679 18:27, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cyprus-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:06, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:06, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I briefly looked at this AfD the last time. I found that the show did indeed exist but didn't try to wade into non-English sources.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 20:17, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{Let's talk}_{about my edits?} 13:28, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{Let's talk}_{about my edits?} 10:59, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. WP:NPASR. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 19:49, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Rusty Moe

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

Probably non-notable Indian band. Third-party references are bare URLs and all but one are dead links. If kept, needs editing to either add sources or remove detailed information not supported by sources, and to repair promotional language. Dcoetzee 11:49, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:28, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:28, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Made few changes and removed material that seemed to be like self promotion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Macabreday (talk • contribs) 08:07, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{Let's talk}_{about my edits?} 12:53, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{Let's talk}_{about my edits?} 10:59, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The first Indian band to release a Christmas single, eh? Too bad it's an unsourced claim, that would be a notability hook if it got any coverage at all. No opinion about inclusion-worthiness of this particular piece although I think that generally speaking a low notability bar on popular culture topics is a good thing. Carrite (talk) 16:54, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. with a leave for speedy renomination. (non-admin closure) Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{Let's talk}_{about my edits?} 18:45, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

ITF Junior Ranking for Asia/Oceania

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

not part of any greater framework of articles - there is no global ITF Junior Rankings article, nor for any other regions, and why the arbitrary joining of Asia and Oceania (and not Asia and Europe, Eurasia) Mayumashu (talk) 04:39, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:24, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:24, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. It is not clear to me that the joining of Asia and Oceana is arbitrary (at least on the part of the creator of the article), in terms of ITF world junior tennis players. See here.--Epeefleche (talk) 10:06, 27 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?} 10:39, 2 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, —Tom Morris (talk) 14:00, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) B music ian 08:28, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Kiki Bokassa

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

article fails to establish notability - article fails WP:GNG - the entire text of the article is taken from the website of the BLP subject and thusly constitues copyright violation. Amsaim (talk) 02:03, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Did you follow WP:BEFORE, or just (incorrectly) judge notability on the basis of the current state of the article? I found another reliable source here (not much, but it's something). She's Lebanese, so be careful also to avoid the bias against non-Western or non-English sources. postdlf (talk) 13:28, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lebanon-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:20, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:20, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:20, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{Let's talk}_{about my edits?} 10:35, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Kiki Bokassa seems to be a notable Lebanese artist (she is known not only because she is a daughter of the former Central African Republic president Jean-Bedel Bokassa). I found this report by Agence France-Presse and another review of her exhibition by Iloubnan. This, along with the source cited above by User:Postdlf, suggests that it is possible to compile a decent article about her and her work. --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 15:47, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - seems to be quite notable, judging by the English language coverage provided so far in iloubnan.info and (particularly) The Daily Star. Sionk (talk) 01:10, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I expect the text on Bokassa's website was copied from the article in Iloubnan. I've re-written the article, removing the promotional fluff and gobbledegook art-speak. IMO it is now a perfectly acceptaable stub that is very well supported by reliable news sources. Sionk (talk) 01:42, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Agreed. Good work, Sionk, thank you. --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 07:04, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the above found sources. postdlf (talk) 19:40, 7 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. —Tom Morris (talk) 13:59, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

List of Warehouse Management System (WMS) Software Packages

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

This page is just spam - Consists entirely of external links Vrenator ^talk 10:28, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, directory of external links with promotional descriptions copy&pasted from vendor sites. Author appears to be looking for ways to promote S3CO since his links were removed from various other articles (and an article deleted). Kuru (talk) 12:40, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete 100% commercial. North8000 (talk) 12:43, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:33, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:34, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete link farm. OSborn^arf_contribs. 23:11, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as above, link farm / spam. unreferenced. Dialectric (talk) 10:51, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{Let's talk}_{about my edits?} 12:48, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ernest Yélémou

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

Article shows no evidence of notability .. fails WP:FOOTYN and WP:GNG TonyStarks (talk) 21:01, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. TonyStarks (talk) 21:02, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 21:06, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - has now made his professional debut, so meets WP:NFOOTBALL. Needs improving, not deleting. Giant Snowman 10:31, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ - per nom. Fails WP:GNG and until he makes his debut for Bejaia or another fully pro club, he fails WP:NSPORT. Sir Sputnik (talk) 21:34, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - as shown below, he has made his debut in a fully-pro league, meaning he passes WP:NSPORT. Sir Sputnik (talk) 15:39, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails per WP:NFOOTBALL as he has not made his debut. Bobby122 Contact Me (C) 21:59, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails the general notability guideline and guidelines for notability in association football. Argyle 4 Life^talk 00:07, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Having played at a sufficiently notable level. Argyle 4 Life^talk 22:00, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Mattythewhite (talk) 14:40, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Passes WP:NFOOTBALL. Mattythewhite (talk) 14:44, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:00, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL ~Feedintm^Parley 00:08, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. It passes WP:NFOOTBALL now. ~Feedintm^Parley 17:52, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The player just made his debut for JSM Béjaïa in the Algerian Ligue Professionnelle 1 (and even scored a goal) and is now notable. I withdraw my deletion request. For source, see here (first goal in game).TonyStarks (talk) 15:28, 31 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?} 10:23, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisting rationale According to nominator the subject of the article now meets WP:NFOOTBALL, which renders the previous delete !votes partly irrelevant in determining the notability of this football players. I have notified every participant of this discussion about this change. Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{Let's talk}_{about my edits?} 10:25, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Xavexgoem (talk) 16:00, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Tautau Moga

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

fails WP:RLN notability guidelines as he has not played an international or in a first grade (NRL) match Mattlore (talk) 10:05, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:32, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:32, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~. Hasn't played a first grade game, so fails WP:RLN and doesn't have significant independent coverage (I don't consider NRL.com to be independent) so fails WP:GNG. Looks like he might debut round one, though, so should be recreated if that happens. Jenks24 (talk) 13:43, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Reading some of the comments below, I guess a redirect until he makes his debut would be fine as well. Jenks24 (talk) 13:16, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Changing to keep. Since my vote on 2 February, Moga has received significant coverage (specifically this article). Jenks24 (talk) 07:37, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Sydney Roosters. Completely agree with Mattlore and Jenks24, save that I think we should redirect rather than delete: (1) it's a viable search term; and (2) he may well become notable very soon and it's much easier to reverse a redirect than to undelete or recreate an article. --Mkativerata (talk) 20:44, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Could we look at incubating until he becomes notable? Mattlore (talk) 21:16, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I think we should keep it because as many reports mention, this kid is going to be an NRL star. I’m not seeking to be a fortune-teller, but he’s going to play in the NRL this year. Therefore, I don’t see the point of deleting it when it is going to have to be re-added soon anyway.Suid-Afrikaanse (talk) 22:59, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Perhaps we could incubate or userfy until he makes his debut? Mattlore (talk) 00:31, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Yes. Either option is agreeable in my opinion.Suid-Afrikaanse (talk) 01:33, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I'm normally pretty quick to suggest deleting these, but it appears this fella will probably be making his first-grade debut in about a month. Doctorhawkes (talk) 08:41, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Sources exist in newspapers about him. [1][2][3][4] Canberra, Melbourne, Sydney newspapers. One minute google search found these. --LauraHale (talk) 20:59, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Another mention in todays Tele. [5] Doctorhawkes (talk) 13:59, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Even if he hasn't played an international or NRL match the coverage is so substantial that he's notable in his own right. Pax:Vobiscum (talk) 16:01, 11 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. By the way, there is an unacceptable amount of off-topic personal comments here that are utterly unrelated to the subject and hand. Please don't clog up deletion discussions with personal feuds. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:07, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Rosebud Plaza

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

The only coverage I could find of this shopping mall was a minor fire and an elderly woman being attacked, and that's not significant coverage. Till I Go Home (talk) 09:57, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Are you sure? -- MST☆R ^{(Chat Me!)} 09:59, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sources 1&2 are about a fire and therefore not significant coverage.

Source 3 is local coverage and per WP:ORG that is not enough.

Source 4 is a robbery, same as 1&2

Source 5 is merely a trivial mention, in fact it isn't even about the mall. It's about a health service.

Source 6 is the same as source 4

Source 7 is about a bomb plot, not the centre

Source 8 - same as 4

Source 10 - elderly woman attack which is run-of-the-mill mall life, same as 1&2.

(next page)

Source 11 - a bit of coverage, although from a reliable source, but doesn't equal to significant coverage

Source 12 is about a meeting not the mall

Source 13 is cars not the mall

Source 14 is about an accident not the mall

Source 15 - same as 14

Source 16 - trivial mention about bank's opening hours, not significant

Source 17 is the same as 5

All in all a minor shopping mall with no evidence of significant coverage. Till I Go Home (talk) 10:16, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The amount of ghits something gets doesn't really guarantee notability. Something can get a lot of google hits but still be considered non-notable under Wikipedia's general notability guidelines, especially if it's something that gets a lot of trivial coverage and/or is very into putting out PR for itself. I know that a lot of indie bands, movies, and authors will put out a massive amount of PR, which means that it'll show up more. (Then you have the sites that do nothing but ping back whatever you typed in and sites that aren't considered to be reliable secondary sources that could show notability.) See WP:GOOGLEHITS for more on this.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 10:24, 2 February 2012 (UTC)tokyogirl79[reply]

Actually Google News is very helpful in determining whether a subject is notable. See this for more information. Till I Go Home (talk) 10:28, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I'm not terribly gung ho on keeping this article, however, it just simply amazes me, how you go to great lengths in saving one article - by that I mean, finding the appropriate sources, adding in information - and then you nominate another, without even thoroughly going through the sources, and doing everything that can be done to establish the article, prior to a last resort, AfD. Now that's just an observation, take it however you please, -- MST☆R ^{(Chat Me!)} 10:58, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Westfield Hornsby is a large, major shopping centre with hundreds of stores and almost one-hundred thousand square feet, and as per WP:NPLACE is notable for that fact alone. Deleting such a large mall would be just plain silly. This however is undoubtedly one of the "very small malls" (from WP:NPLACE), which "are generally deleted". I would improve the article, but I can find no coverage. [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] Till I Go Home (talk) 11:06, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And Chadstone Shopping Centre is another 100,000 m2 bigger than Hornsby. Size doesn't always count. It's really about the 17 sources ~ which I'm sure there would be a few 'good' sources. I haven't gone through them as much, but I'm glad I'm in good company with that, too. On a side note, I start school tommorow, I coundnt care less how this turns out - I just want to stress that there can be stuff done to improve the article if people tried. "Why don't you try" people will say, my reply is: If you'd like to do school instead of me, by all means I'll improve it - because it can be done. -- MST☆R ^{(Chat Me!)} 11:23, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have school tomorrow as well. Even if the article could be improved, I would probably stay up and do it. Till I Go Home (talk) 11:29, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Huh? all of a sudden are we experts on each others priorities and what we have to do? No. So a suggestion would be to mind our own business' ...I think that would be the appropriate approach. Thanks, -- MST☆R ^{(Chat Me!)} 11:37, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So first you whinge about a non-notable shopping mall up at AfD, then suggest for someone to improve it and when I do some work on the article you get annoyed.... Till I Go Home (talk) 11:43, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A) I didn't even see the work you did on it prior to commenting, B) I didn't know it was so difficult to simpky add a Notability tag to the article, that way I would have the time to get to it, and if I found there was clearly nothing that could be done, I would have requested it to be deleted. C) I did not suggest that someone improve it, I just said it can be improved.

I remember giving you a BarnStar for your excellent work you did saving the Hornsby article. I should really take it back, but never mind because not only is it worthless, it just highlights that you like to do that type of work for some articles, and not others. If anything, that's the only thing I'm "Annoyed" at. -- MST☆R ^{(Chat Me!)} 11:54, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand why I'm being put in a corner for this. YOU said that you thought the article could be improved, so I edit the article to see if some sort of notability can be made (and possibly withdraw my nom. if so) and that's still not good enough! And I didn't "save" Hornsby. If you look at the discussion, it was closed as "no consensus". That mall has nothing to do with this AfD, I don't understand why you insist on bringing up something which has been left in the past. Till I Go Home (talk) 12:09, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Let's take a step back here. I'm not putting you into a corner. I just think there should have been a different approach. The damage is done, it looks like this article will be "in the past" too. But at least, we both, I hope, have learnt something useful from this. Now, I'm really off, it's late school :| talk soon, -- MST☆R ^{(Chat Me!)} 12:18, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:49, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Shopping malls-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:49, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I've read that but it still holds true to what I was saying: it's not about the amount of hits that come up in a Google search, but what it brings up. You can have a search that brings up a million hits for something, but if none of those hits is something that could be considered a reliable and independent source that shows notability then the amount of ghits is meaningless. More hits means that you're more likely to find sources, but it's not a guarantee. I personally don't have an opinion one way or another as far as the notability of the Plaza goes, but the amount of ghits can't really be used as a justification for keeping an article. I use Google all the time for AfDs (my search engine of choice), so I'm not denying that it can be a valuable tool. I'm just saying that not everything it brings up can be usable.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 09:26, 4 February 2012 (UTC)tokyogirl79[reply]
- The key criterion is significant coverage. It is always possible to say that an article about something at a place is is more about the event than the place, but a place where newsworthy events keep happening is arguably notable .

some of the events are only borderline newsworthy, but some, such as the bombing, seem more important. "aboutness" is a rather difficult thing to pin down. DGG ( talk ) 16:47, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I think based on what I just said, it passes the GNG. I still don't think we should cover it. Whether such events are in the news and available to us is a matter of the vagaries of google and google news, which cover some area's newspapers and not others. and within an area do not necessarily cover all the newspapers. I consider the GNG criterion useless unless there is nothing else to go on, and the statement in the guideline that we rely on it most to be incorrect. I have come to thing we are actually not using it. We've gotten too good at quibbling about the qualifiers.We rely mostly on our sense of notability and adjust the way we interpret the guideline to correspond. If I thought we should keep this,I could use the guideline to say so; if I thought we should delete this, I could use the guideline to say so. A 2000,000 sq ft mall with only routine anchor stores is not notable unless something really exceptional is involved. DGG ( talk ) 16:47, 5 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. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:59, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Donald Maclean of Brolas

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

Contested prod. Fails WP:BIO. Only mentions are short genealogical entries, no significant coverage of who he was or what he is supposedly notable for. Only, very relative, importance lies in his relatives, which aren't extremely notable either. Fram (talk) 09:57, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:32, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The coverage doesn't meet BIO, especially because it lacks any depth whatsoever. Appearance in a published genealogy does not do it. Novaseminary (talk) 17:07, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
keep. Seems to have been a gentleman. Barney the barney barney (talk) 22:14, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Any policy) or guideline-based reasons you want to keep this? "Being a gentleman" isn't really sufficient. Fram (talk) 08:08, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Not as famous as his great-grandfather, but still a notable figure in the history of Clan Maclean. Plenty of book references. -- 202.124.75.242 (talk) 01:21, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- So note some of those sources here, establishing how they meet WP:BIO, and we can all agree on notability. But bald assertions about him being a "a notable figure in the history of Clan Maclean" don't meet BIO. Novaseminary (talk) 04:27, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Sources are available at the search links above, as the IP editor indicates. If you haven't look at these then your opinion on the question of notability is uninformed and therefore worthless. Warden (talk) 09:19, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable clan laird as he appears in numerous histories. Warden (talk) 09:19, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:LOTSOFSOURCES. Novaseminary (talk) 22:12, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - WP:VAGUEWAVE. Warden (talk) 22:17, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - I've looked and can't find anything other than the geneology-type sourcing already in the article. I will hapily change my !vote if somebody just notes some coverage of the depth that WP:BIO calls for. But I fear "your opinion on the question of notability is uninformed and therefore worthless." Novaseminary (talk) 22:29, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Laird of Brolas Where GBooks references are not effectively genealogical, they seem to be either for Donald Maclean, 1st Laird of Brolas or for Donald Maclean, 3rd Laird of Brolas. The sons of the current subject of the article are notable, relatives who share his name are notable but his personal notability is at most not proven. Laird of Brolas already mentions not only both of the other Donalds but also the current subject of the article, in probably about the right amount of detail. PWilkinson (talk) 23:50, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I would support such a redirect as an alternative for deletion. And Pwilkinson's post highlights a point I should have made earlier. I think the keepers might be focused on the wrong Maclean. But since they refuse to actually point to any particular source, we don't know. Novaseminary (talk) 03:52, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 19:48, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Monterey Bay Botanical Garden

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

This article is about a proposed botanical garden that, from all indications, doesn't exist except as a website. No actual location for the garden is specified. Such a proposed project might still be notable if it were being written about in independent sources, but no such sources are supplied, and my own searches found absolutely nothing. The only sources in the article are the project's own website, a directory listing for the company's office address, a couple of websites for gardens in Hawaii, and a page from the Monterey Bay Aquarium website that has nothing to do with this purported botanical garden. This article was deprodded by its creator[11]; I then posted on the creator's page asking for independent sources, but none have been added.[12] Based on all this, I'd say the subject fails the notability test, and WP:CRYSTAL applies as well. Arxiloxos (talk) 06:31, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. —Arxiloxos (talk) 06:46, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Museums and libraries-related deletion discussions. —Arxiloxos (talk) 06:46, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - CRYSTAL ball gazing. MBBG has a bare website listing the future plants of the future garden. TOOSOON. No RS. Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:50, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The botanical garden land is currently in agricultural production (primarily strawberries), and adding the other plants will not commence until finalization of the land transfer ownership. This is not being publicly discussed due to financial concerns. There are presently no newspaper articles about this developing project, but it is anticipated that there will soon be. In particular, Letters of Interest in the project have been obtained from government officials, and will soon be made available on the mbbg website.

While you certainly don't have the same Crystal Ball that I have, it should be evident that the promoter of this developing project is the same promoter of the project that was developed previously, and for which a Wikipedia article already exists at World Botanical Gardens. That is a good indication that the project will happen. Wikipedia Crystal ball gazing does not require that proposed projects actually be in existence before they may be written about. Rather, they require good evidence that they will likely come to fruition. The fact of the extensive webpage, land in negotiation, and a track record of success in developing botanical gardens should be sufficient evidence of the likelihood of the project. As newsmedia reports are developed in the near future, the article will be amended/updated to add those references.

Oldnoah (talk) 18:22, 2 February 2012 (UTC)Oldnoah Note: User Oldnoah is the author of the article in question. MelanieN (talk) 22:25, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete too soon, perhaps this will meet WP:N once it's futher along but right now it's far too soon. There is a serious lack of evidence of notability here. There are zero google news hits on the title. RadioFan (talk) 00:22, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:TOOSOON. The article consists of nothing but predictions, hope, hype, and unrelated info about the developer's other projects. All references are self-referential. At this point the developer doesn't even own the land. As the article's author admits, there has been no newspaper publicity about this proposed botanical garden; the lack of such publicity is an automatic disqualifier from Wikipedia's perspective. If it actually comes into being and does all the marvelous things it says it is going to do, it will clearly be notable; there will be newspaper coverage about its grand opening and travel-literature reviews of it, and a sourced article can be created then. There might even be such publicity as it takes shape, before it actually opens. But at this point it is simply an idea, and no Reliable Source has chosen to write about it. I am impressed by the idea and the developer's dreams, and I look forward to visiting it if it opens within my lifetime, but Wikipedia requires more solid information. MelanieN (talk) 22:17, 5 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. —Tom Morris (talk) 13:57, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

IRAN RFID

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

Lacks substantial rs coverage. Created by an SPA. Epeefleche (talk) 06:31, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:28, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:28, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:29, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Promotional, no independent RS. ●Mehran ^Debate● 12:45, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom, lack of reliable sources. Spada II ♪♫ (talk) 15:42, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No third party sources provided.Farhikht (talk) 10:19, 6 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. —Tom Morris (talk) 10:38, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ythos

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

This company exists, but I cannot find sufficent substantial independent RS coverage of it, having checked gnews and gbooks. Created by a one-edit-only-ever SPA. Epeefleche (talk) 05:12, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:15, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:15, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Could not find any RS for this article, and I feel as though the article does carry a bit of a non-neutral/promotional tone as well. MyNameWasTaken (talk) 18:08, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Non-notable. Spam. SL93 (talk) 23:50, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as SPA Spam / Promotional as above, unreferenced. Dialectric (talk) 11:03, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Another software and technology company advertising on Wikipedia:

Initially the company focused on leading edge consulting contracts with several of the worlds' leading companies.....
The company provides technology and business consulting services across the care continuum...
The company employs an agile business model for rapid application development projects....
The company also operates an international network of expert developers who are commissioned for specific module or service developments thus ensuring that the platform includes an ever increasing portfolio of competences.

Typical, deliberately uninformative drivel - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 16:40, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete - It could be kept if sources were added from Google news, and a coherent narrative constructed around those, putting the cart before the horse, so to speak. Bearian (talk) 21:32, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{Let's talk}_{about my edits?} 18:39, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

List of microfluidics research groups

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

last AfD was no consensus but i didn't see any compelling argument for keep. this is simply a directory. unless many of the individual groups listed are notable in their own right, there is little encyclopaedic value here. LibStar (talk) 04:24, 2 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 2. Snotbot t • c » 04:34, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep - You don't see any reasons to keep but you don't mention any for delete. You call this a directory? Is this the first list on Wikipedia you've ever seen? Because Wikipedia is full of such lists, there are thousands if not hundreds of thousands of them and we don't go around deleting them for no reason just because they are a list.--Avala (talk) 12:13, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a reason for keeping. Lists are kept if they offer encyclopedic value and contain many notable entries. This does not. LibStar (talk) 12:19, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Haha this is not related to WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS because you are not listing this for its content but for being a list or as you say "this is simply a directory". That is why I can disagree with you based on the fact that lists are a normal thing on Wikipedia. And as to the content, this article has notable entries.--Avala (talk) 12:49, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:03, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. As none of the microfluidics research groups themselves have articles, but nearly all of the universities or other institutions do, this is perhaps really a List of institutions with microfluidics research groups, or List of institutions that conduct research in microfluidics. If having such a research group is a significant fact about an institution, then the list may be appropriate. postdlf (talk) 15:12, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I don't understand the nominator's reason for deletion. The list is referenced, extensive, and seems to meet WP:LISTPURP.--Stvfetterly (talk) 15:22, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

we could also reference a list of mathematics schools in universities. LibStar (talk) 00:53, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

While virtually every school has a math program, microfluidics research is a little less common so your analogy is a bit lacking. If a user wanted to create a list of mathematics schools in universities that conformed to WP:LISTPURP that should be acceptable though.--Stvfetterly (talk) 13:41, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 19:44, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sexual abuse scandal in the Anglican Diocese of Sydney

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

The article relies on primary sources to create an essay discussing sexual abuse in the diocese. However, only one case was raised, in which the alleged perpetrator never went to court. There doesn't seem to be enough to warrant the "sexual abuse scandal" title for one event, and most of the article is about the diocese's procedures for dealing with abuse allegations, which would be better covered in the diocese article. Bilby (talk) 04:06, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

While the article focuses on one case, there were several other cases mentioned before the Royal Commission (and which are referenced in its final report). As regards the main case mentioned in this article, it *did* go to (civil) court, and the article quotes from the judge's decision. The reason the article focuses on that case is because it was a proven case, both through evidence and the perpetrator's admissions (which were documented both within the Royal Commission and subsequently), so Bilby's use of the word "alleged" is incorrect.

I disagree that "most of the article is about the diocese's procedures" - close to half of the article is about the Royal Commission's examination of the main case and others. The diocese's procedures for dealing with complaints were amended principally as a result of that complainant's case and her subsequent activism.

This article was originally part of the main diocese article, but was expanded (with a number of errors included, though, which have since been corrected) and given its own page. I believe it's sufficiently large that it would be inappropriate to have it return to being part of the main diocese's article.

I guess it depends on how you define "scandal". I personally think that it's scandalous that ANY denomination's handling of clergy abuse complaints can be described as a disgrace. But more generally, the "clergy sexual abuse scandal" is referred to in many countries and across many denominations. It's not unreasonable for the article title to be taken as dealing with the piece of the scandal that deals with that issue in the Sydney Anglican diocese - ie. interpreting it not so much as "the scandal in the diocese", but "the part of the wider scandal which occurred within that particular denomination and diocese".

But even if the word "scandal" in the heading is a bit OTT, I see no reason why that should suggest that the whole article should be removed. Desda (talk) 09:47, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The other cases aren't covered, making it seem that this is only about one issue. The judge's decision was that the one case discussed was consensual and that there was no means of proving that anything had happened while the girl concerned was underage. The accused never faced court himself.

In regard to focus, "Brief historical overview", "2004 code of conduct", "Safe Ministry Board" and "Redefined process of dealing with allegations" are all about the diocese's approach to sexual abuse accusations in general, and not about any scandal. The only section relating to actual abuse cases is "Royal Commission into the New South Wales Police Service".

My major concern is that the article reads like an essay - there is no evidence that this was a scandal per se, it relies almost entirely on primary sources, and most of it is unsourced personal interpretation by the editors. Given the nature of the topic, I don't feel that it is viable in this form. Although perhaps others will disagree. - Bilby (talk) 11:03, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:01, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:02, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:21, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Holy tl;dr, Batman! The article is a catastrophe. The lead does not relate to readers the what, when, and where of the event and the article pontificates about policy without informing about events. If there's an encyclopedia article hidden in this wall of prose, I don't see it. It's an original essay on church policy that only tangentially deals with the subject at hand, as far as I can tell. Maybe I'm just dumb. There needs to be a hand grenade tossed at this one, without prejudice to recreation if there is an actual "Sidney Anglican Sexual Abuse Scandal" covered in multiple published sources. Carrite (talk) 16:47, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is certainly an essay. It starts with "However, the ordinances which applied to clergy sexual abuse for nearly the whole of the 20th Century (1904–1996) proved as much of an obstacle to deposition of offending ministers as a help" and goes on from there. I'm surprised the article has survived so long. St Anselm (talk) 19:48, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Perhaps this could be rewritten into a legitimate article, but right now it's a mess that raises troubling BLP issues. Nwlaw63 (talk) 21:07, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The article itself is a WP:SYNTH from primary sources, with several key statements not supported by citations to reliable sources (raising WP:BLP issues, as noted by Nwlaw63). Also, there is no evidence of notability -- A Google search finds newspaper coverage on sexual abuse by clergy in Australia, but nothing which relates to the rather narrow subject of this article. -- 202.124.74.2 (talk) 00:19, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There seems to be a breach of WP:PERP here, given that the case described by the article did not involve a finding of guilt by the Royal Commission, the civil action failed, and there was no criminal case. If there is a story here, it is how and why the Anglican Diocese of Sydney improved its processes, but apart from the actual Diocesan policies, I can't find any material on that. -- 202.124.75.207 (talk) 02:34, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. Nick-D (talk) 10:54, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:SNOW. Bearian (talk) 21:30, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Major edit and merge that which remains, and is of encyclopedic value, into Anglican Diocese of Sydney. Jance day (talk) 22:19, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per nominator rationale. --LauraHale (talk) 21:00, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- In contrast with the Catholic church, sexuyla abuse cases in the Anglican church are rare (though not unknown). This article seems to be about (1) the present safeguards (which can probably be merged (as a brief summary) into a parent article (2) A single abuse case, apparently not handled as well as it should have been. There is really far too litlte content to make a worthwhile article. Peterkingiron (talk) 19:13, 10 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. —Tom Morris (talk) 10:34, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Apache Warrior

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

Non-notable film critic. Fails WP:CREATIVE and WP:GNG. Sources about him are not independent since he writes for xcritic and is a voting member of avn. Morbidthoughts (talk) 03:21, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Apache Warrior is also a voting member for The Tranny Awards and The Galaxy Awards. He is involved with the XBIZ and XRCO Awards. He is the only adult film reviewer who gets to vote in the top three adult film awards (AVN, XRCO, and XBIZ) along in the Tranny and Galaxy Awards. The Galaxy Awards are based in Spain. He also votes in the GFY Awards. Both of those are based overseas. So, Apache Warrior has extensive voting duties globally.

Thank you for your time and I hope that you keep Apache Warrior's Wikipedia page online. — Preceding unsigned comment added by GregorioGonuelas (talk • contribs) 03:45, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: No doubt he is an eminent adult film critic, but the only way for keeping the article is posting reliable secondary sources about him. "Dura Lex, Sed Lex", it happens even for more important mainstream film critics and journalists. Cavarrone (talk) 09:27, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:48, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Actually fails WP:ANYBIO and WP:GNG. Cavarrone (talk) 09:27, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Subject fails the GNG and all relevant SNGs. None of the article's sourcing is genuinely independent. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 01:48, 10 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 List of Wild Cards characters. (non-admin closure) Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{Let's talk}_{about my edits?} 18:24, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Popinjay (Wild Cards)

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

Non-notable Pokemon thing(?) No evidence of notability. Being a Wild Card victim with powers, but relatively few mutations who once teleported the dangerous joker Ti Malice into a place he had only dreamed of doesn't automatically confer notability.GrapedApe (talk) 03:17, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Shadowjams (talk) 04:19, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:56, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:56, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:57, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to List of Wild Cards characters per WP:ATD. Jclemens (talk) 20:03, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of Wild Cards characters, where (nearly?) all WC character articles should be merged at the present. The character list is just barebone, and it would be good to flesh it out while removing this as a very poor stand-alone article. – sgeureka ^t•c 15:53, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Update Yes, having merged all character stubs there now, I think merging is indeed the right approach here. – sgeureka ^t•c 17:05, 6 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. WP:EPISODE is unhelpful here, and there should probably be a discussion to come up with notability criteria for lists of articles. Notwithstanding, this article does not have any reliable sources, and therefore has been deleted. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 19:41, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

List of Where in the World Is Carmen Sandiego? episodes

AfDs for this article:

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

First of all, the sources are inadequate (one is TV.com and the other is a forum, both of which are not really considered third-party reliable sources.) There are also issues with fancruft and original research. Darth Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 02:13, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This article only caused edit-warring without reliable sources. WikiLubber (talk) 02:33, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. My statement when I nominated this article for deletion last year speaks for itself:

“

Appears to be a (albeit comprehensive) directory filled with excessive detail about the episodes (WP:CRUFT), which Wikipedia is not. There don't appear to be non-primary reliable sources for any of the information. Since there are no independent reliable sources I believe to exist for the individual episodes of the show, this list fails WP:EPISODE.

”

— RJaguar3, 2nd nomination

RJaguar3 | u | t 04:18, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

- As I read it, WP:EPISODE is (unsurprisingly to me) about creating articles for individual episodes, not about creating indexing lists such as this one which is done routinely for series in which none of the individual episodes are considered notable. Nor is the lack of secondary sources in and of itself a problem for this kind of list. postdlf (talk) 04:28, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - From WP:EPISODE: "The following guideline aims to promote the creation of high-quality articles about television shows and their episodes. This includes lists of episodes, television series/season articles, and television program articles." (emphasis changed) Also, in WP:EPISODE#Process, the guideline advises editors to "[c]reate [a] page for the television PROGRAM. Once there's enough verifiable information independent of the show itself, [then create] a page for each series/season, or a 'List of episodes' page with every season/series." RJaguar3 | u | t 17:06, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
We can reject all of the above deletion rationales as either irrelevant to this kind of list or as raising editing concerns instead of deletion concerns. But I do see two valid deletion issues here to discuss. 1) Is this is the type of TV series for which we maintain episode lists, or is this essentially a game show? 2) Given that the series is apparently not available on DVD, does that now make a description of it unverifiable if we can't locate reliable secondary sources? postdlf (talk) 04:28, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

1. This is essentially a game show.

2. I'm not sure. WikiLubber (talk) 14:23, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:51, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:51, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but remove the outcomes of the map and the scores. Just put the episode name, the crook, the loot, and the episode air-date. ACMEWikiNet (talk) 13:54, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Any comment on the questions I raised? Because right now I don't know why you think it should be kept. postdlf (talk) 14:02, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no possible encyclopedic purpose; just a collection of fancruft and trivial detail. --Orange Mike | Talk 14:46, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The article lacks any reliable sources for verifiability. — Fourthords | =Λ= | 19:31, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, it's a freaking game show. This would be akin to listing every bonus puzzle on Wheel of Fortune (yesterday's was A HUGE HIT, by the way). Game shows don't have a "plot" to speak of that requires an episode list. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 23:10, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep in fact, a very strong keep. I can understand a feeling against having articles on individual episodes. But a list of episodes is the minimally needed encyclopedic content. As for the verification problem, has anybody looked in any of the professional level video sources or specialized libraries? DGG ( talk ) 05:59, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- If this were a dramatized TV series (i.e., fiction, not necessarily of the drama genre) I'd agree with you, but if this is really a game show, then episode lists aren't standard practice here, nor are they useful information in my view. Do you think the characterization of this show is incorrect, such that the dramatized bits per episode are substantive enough to make it more than just a game show, or are you saying that even if it is a game show, it should have an episode list? postdlf (talk) 16:22, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - To be fair, a list of episodes of the game show Legends of the Hidden Temple was kept at AfD last year when I nominated it. List of BrainSurge episodes was deleted. List of My Family's Got GUTS episodes exists, but it has not been nominated for deletion. So there is at least some precedent for game shows having episode lists (although I personally think the continued existence of these articles should be revisited at some point). RJaguar3 | u | t 17:14, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Although there's a sense of individuality to the episodes, this is still just a game show. Specific episodes can be (sparingly) mentioned in the parent article to give examples of the format, but there's no real need for a list. GRAPPLE X 18:28, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, unfortunately, based on reliability grounds. I assume the info to be correct, actually, but we can't check if it's valid without a reliable list like on DVDs or by the creators. As time goes on, the problem will just increase. – sgeureka ^t•c 10:35, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Stong Keep - These aren't individual episode articles we're talking about here. ----DanTD (talk) 21:45, 5 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, non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 19:49, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Lemmentykki

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

Lacks substantial RS coverage, and Allmusic never heard of it. Zero refs. Epeefleche (talk) 23:24, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Finland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:09, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:09, 27 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) 02:09, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I can't prove it exists and only results are either search pages returning no results or copied from wikipedia. Ramaksoud2000 ^{(Did I make a mistake?)} 02:51, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Sir Sputnik (talk) 16:48, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Philipp Prosenik

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails WP:NFOOTBALL and WP:GNG. Only general coverage, yet to make professional debut or senior international debut. ~Feedintm^Parley 01:27, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:54, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:54, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Austria-related deletion discussions. Jenks24 (talk) 13:36, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Meets the general notability guideline. An example of sources that shows significant coverage in independent reliable sources are:

—Jenks24 (talk) 13:31, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 13:54, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - meets WP:GNG. Article needs a massive overhaul though. Giant Snowman 13:58, 3 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. —Tom Morris (talk) 12:13, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yo No Se'

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

Fails WP:NALBUMS. Pretty much duplicates what's in Pajama Party (group). Bbb23 (talk) 01:20, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:26, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The title should be Yo No Sé. The song did chart at #75 on the Hot 100 in 1989, but a peak that low warrants a redirect — a redirect from the proper spelling. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 23:11, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete altogether, no redirect. The correct title, as written above, is currently a redirect to Pajama Party (group). This article could be rewritten, I suppose, if enough material and sources could be found to create a longer, more notable one. DCItalk 03:51, 4 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.