Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2011 November 12

< 11 November	13 November >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:25, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Habib Construction Services Pakistan

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

This article fails WP:GNG. Moreover there are no reliable sources to cite the things said in the article and thus it fails WP:RS. P.S:-I had also nominated this article against G11.One of the prime reason being speedy deletion of another similar article namely Habib Construction Services Pvt. Ltd. by user Fastily in sep 2011. Vivekananda De--tAlK 05:14, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails WP:GNG due to lack of significant coverage. All of the Google hits I could quickly find were directly affiliated with the company itself; moreover, there were 0 news hits. Chris (talk) 23:00, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 18:56, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 18:56, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Crw21/Chris, and as failing WP:V. Bearian (talk) 21:33, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete advert previously speedied. --82.41.22.244 (talk) 20:11, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as lacking independent sources. Stuartyeates (talk) 08:06, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I can't find coverage to satisfy WP:CORP / WP:GNG; it's possible there are some references in another language, but I can't find them. (Please let me know if someone else does) Chzz ► 10:45, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Their is another company of the name "Habib Rafiq" which is also a construction company.See this for the google news search.But these two companies are different."Habib Rafiq" site is "http://www.habibrafiq.com/" ; "Habib Construction Services (Pvt) Ltd" is "http://www.hcs.com.pk/".Vivekananda De--tAlK 05:54, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2011 November 17. Snotbot t • c » 19:26, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Neutrality^talk 01:56, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

2007 Leilehua Mules football

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

A season recap of a high school football team's season. Nothing notable about it. Side note: I can tell its creator put a lot of effort into it, but that still doesn't make it satisfy notability guidelines. Jrcla2 (talk) 23:51, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:58, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:58, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. WP:NSPORTS implies that high school sports seasons are not notable enough for separate articles of their own. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 01:51, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete School sports team year reviews are clearly not notable for own articles. Mt king ^(edits) 03:30, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete even high school sports teams are not notable enough for their own articles, to say nothing of yearly reviews. Trusilver 04:55, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable high school football team and season.--Giants27(T|C) 03:18, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete high school sports rarely achieve notability for inclusion here and this does not appear to be an exception. Nice enthusiasm for the editors! Try another wiki.--Paul McDonald (talk) 15:37, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:26, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Carmen Acevedo Butcher

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

This scholar-in-residence doesn't appear notable. The Carnegie award isn't a national one, and the Georgia writers award doesn't appear to be a significant one. I was unable to find any coverage in books or news archives. ^Bongo_matic 23:51, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:55, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:56, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per Bongo. She doesn't pass the WP:PROFESSOR test. JFHJr (㊟) 01:48, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No evidence of notability. --Cox wasan (talk) 22:48, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as failing WP:PROFESSOR . Stuartyeates (talk) 08:07, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete - Only reliable Ghits are here & here, all the rest are places selling her books. --Madison-chan (talk) 23:17, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
weak Keep 6 publshed books in Worldcat "Man of blessing : a life of St. Benedict" is in almost 300 libraries,[1] Hildegard of Bingen : a spiritual reader in in over 200 ^[1] , both from a respectable religious publisher. If there are reviews it would prove notability as an author. DGG ( talk ) 02:17, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:27, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of the top ranking countries of the Eurovision Song Contest

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

Very similar article for the Junior Eurovision Song Contest was deleted recently per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of the top ranking countries of the Junior Eurovision Song Contest for reasons that extend to this article as well. Page is primarily statistics, which are trivial, with much original research included. Content could easily be summarised as appropriate (if it isn't already) in other articles. CT Cooper · talk 21:49, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:14, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:14, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment : There's a summary of statistics on the main Eurovision Song Contest page. I'm undecided whether this belongs here, as has been mentioned, the statistics are not obviously available elsewhere (the book reference, dated 2007, cannot obviously be used a source for 2010 statistics), but I don't think it does any harm having them. --Ritchie333 (talk) 17:11, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The lack of proper sourcing is more grounds for deletion in my view, than it is for keeping. Articles are supposed to summarise the contents of reliable sources per WP:V and WP:N. Straight tables of results in articles such as Eurovision Song Contest 2010 can be sourced and are appropriate, and simple calculations are also allowed per WP:CALC. This article goes beyond both those things, with league table based on a methodology invented by editors (e.g. giving a point for each country in the top five), and hence violates the original research policy. The text that goes with it reads like a personal interpretation of the tables, and again is original research. The content may not be harmful in itself, and may do well on a more suitable website, but it is not encyclopaedic. CT Cooper · talk 22:55, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Trivial, as above; additionally, may be included in the main article. --Neutrality^talk 20:56, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I dont see the harm in keeping it. Yes its trivial but so are alot of other articles on Wikipedia. This is good statistics for Eurovision-interested readers that are updated each year. The main article is already quite big and this material would make it perhaps too big in my opinion. It should have its own article.--BabbaQ (talk) 13:29, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- As I hinted on above, harm isn't the issue here, nor whether it is interesting or not. The issue about the main article being too big is easily answered - most of the content in this article should go entirely for violating WP:NOR. CT Cooper · talk 22:12, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 23:36, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This is WP:OR Mt king ^(edits) 03:40, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

How do you mean?--BabbaQ (talk) 12:04, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The ranking by point scheme used to determine the list is original research unless there are sources that show this ranking scheme is widely accepted. -- Whpq (talk) 14:27, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was No Consensus to delete. Notability concerns have been countered by citations to sources. Eluchil404 (talk) 04:12, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Maya Tiwari

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

Non-notable religious leader. She fails WP:BIO standards as to substantial coverage. While she is well published and quite active as a religious leader, there's very little written objectively or reliably about her. JFHJr (㊟) 23:35, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – The hits show mostly 1) insignificant/trivial coverage; 2) her statements as a spokesperson for her organization, about the organization; and 3) her own publications, as opposed to people publishing things significantly about her. JFHJr (㊟) 23:48, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

delete: Not a notable enough item, and the whole page seems to have come about as an advertising item. The only thing they did not do was to add some 800 number to order the DVD. History2007 (talk) 23:56, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:55, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:55, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep Clearly a notable religious leader. For one example, please see Mother Maya reaches out. This article is from the The Times of India. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 21:57, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – That's some coverage, not substantial or multiple coverage. JFHJr (㊟) 22:04, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Reply She has also written for the Times of India Food sadhanas. There are also the many citations of her works in Google Books, and Google Scholar. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 20:01, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep As the creator of this page, I think it is worthy of being in Wikipedia. To be clear, this was the first page I have ever felt compelled to create--I studied the guidelines when I created it and definitely did not mean for it to be an advertisement for product sales. I would like the opportunity to provide more relevant details and to encourage other contributions, and also to delete information that may not be within the guidelines, if any. I welcome this kind of feedback.Wordsage (talk) 20:12, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this topic has not been covered in depth in independent third party sources. Stuartyeates (talk) 08:09, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Also profiled in [Yoga Journal]. -- Whpq (talk) 14:34, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note Along with Yoga Journal, she is profiled in Radio National [2], and The Times of India - this is a clear keep. Please also see her monastic name Sri Swamini Mayatitananda. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 04:03, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:28, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mike Larkin

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

meets no notability guidelines perWP:Notability (athletes)#golf EJBH (talk) 23:15, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. EJBH (talk) 23:15, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Golf-related deletion discussions. EJBH (talk) 23:15, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Gnews hits on "Mike Larkin" + "golf" are mostly unrelated to him. The few that apply are trivial--his most newsworthy achievement seems to have been once playing a round in an an amateur event with a 15-year-old Michelle Wie. General search is more of same, plus some primary and social media hits. The article itself does provide some references, e.g., his scorecard from a Hooters Tour event and a results sheet indicating that he once won $1,060.71 by tying for 17th-23rd place at the PGA Assistant Professional Championship. I note that none of the past 15 winners of this event merits a WP entry. He might yet make it to the PGA, so perhaps an article will eventually be appropriate. But fails WP:GNG for now. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 03:06, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - not notable. Tewapack (talk) 18:41, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- Agreed. Not notable- William 19:43, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG. Stuartyeates (talk) 08:09, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Noah23. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 15:17, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Cytoplasm Pixel

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

non-notable album, I tried a redirect to Noah23 but that was reverted, as was a PROD. I can find no RS to support notability, this fails WP:NALBUMS Jezhotwells (talk) 23:06, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Jezhotwells (talk) 23:10, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Noah23 Zero indication of wp:notability. The 3 references aren't references. The are 3 external links which all go to the same place which is the album's listing on a website. North8000 (talk) 00:48, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per above reasoning. Noah23 seems to also have notability issues, and has only one actual reliable source, so I don't think merging there will be a step forward. The article has little actual content to be merged, anyway.--Martin IIIa (talk) 21:06, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete / Redirect no references. Stuartyeates (talk) 08:12, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:30, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Eric Steele (Engineer)

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

Non-notable individual lacking GHits and GNEWS of substance. reddogsix (talk) 22:56, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete? I spent a few minutes looking through the first reference (given a as cite for the "known for sentence" and did not see Eric Steele mentioned in there. Nor in the quickly available parts of the second references (the article has 2 references). Based on my initial/superficial check. there's nothing establishing wp:notability. 00:43, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:51, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:51, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This article cites four sources. Three of them don't mention the subject, and the other one wouldn't display on my computer. If he isn't even mentioned in the sources that are supposed to establish his notability, that doesn't speak well for his notability. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 01:56, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as lacking WP:RS. Stuartyeates (talk) 08:12, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Lacks coverage in reliable sources to establish notability. The article makes the claim that Steele is a pioneer in "open-ended coaxial-probe technique for characterizing material permittivity", but provides no sources that back up this claim. I tried Google Books and Scholar to find any evidence of this and turned up nothing. -- Whpq (talk) 14:44, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:32, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Intimate Contact Induced Surface Separation (ICISS)

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

Contested prod. Unremarkable concept. "Intimate Contact Induced Surface Separation" -wiki shows only three unique results, and they're all from the same author. MikeWazowski (talk) 22:40, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Original research/vanity publishing. Non-notable. andy (talk) 22:44, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:50, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:50, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Searching shows this is not notable, and the article appears to be written by author of the apparently uncited paper on which the article is based. -- 202.124.75.44 (talk) 01:15, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Nothing except self-published sources. Xxanthippe (talk) 09:22, 13 November 2011 (UTC).[reply]
Delete - Per WP:Self, as noted by others above. --Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 05:41, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as lacking independent sources. Stuartyeates (talk) 08:13, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as it presents original useful data. It may take a long time until the apparently novel procedure is used and cited in other research works. It should be inked to microwave radiation as an additional application since wiki has an educational purpose as well. Researchers are often inspired by novel demonstrated methods. It inspired me to use for paint like substance removal from a plastic without having to apply any substances on the surface, without having to scratch the plastic surface. Novel demonstrated procedure shown on wiki do nothing but help internet users and further trust respect wiki as a source of information and inspiration. Flexibility is a virtue, please consider for keeping the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.97.236.116 (talk) 21:38, 16 November 2011 (UTC) — 78.97.236.116 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Keep - searching surface ... separation we found this - great, works for us...fresh concept too bad the original authors did not invest to patent it, useful, wide applications beyond the ones offered as example. We applied in other areas we can't discolse at this time but it works very well. rare somebody publish new ideas without making money, it is no advertising . Yes , why not keep it for public, we should all say thanks, we do here in our medical lab. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.24.91.94 (talk) 22:27, 16 November 2011 (UTC) — 188.24.91.94 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
~~Keep~~ - we found it published in print Bulletin, presented at Animal Science and Biotech international conference 2011 and in print ISSN 1843-5262 vol 68 page 437. Great work good for medical field too. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.24.91.94 (talk) 22:42, 16 November 2011 (UTC) — 188.24.91.94 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Comment: contributors might want to read Wikipedia:Notability in order to better understand the issues here. Stuartyeates (talk) 22:46, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep very notable,remarcable, novel. If anybody can add references please help the article to stay . Wiki has good rules as to prevent abuses but also has to have the ability to recocgnize the value of information. I see it as a ready to use know how. It is just a mater of time many will use. Wiki needs to adjust the policy , police attitude is good without excess ;-) I vote KEEP IT, SHOULD STAY HERE. It took me like an hour to figure out how to edit, participate. I see it worthwhile as I have a masters in physics, not microwaves but materials. keep it, I hope my vote it counts for readers and wiki team. Wish you the best and good work you guys are doing. Regards, Phillip. Oh, yes I've seen the comment... some rules are too harsh... my opinion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.120.214.56 (talk) 08:53, 19 November 2011 (UTC) — 89.120.214.56 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Comment. There have been several "keep" contributions from new editors. Please read Wikipedia:Single-purpose account - it is more than likely that your contributions will be treated with suspicion. If you have something to say that directly addresses the issues behind this deletion debate, please do so. The argument is that the article fails to meet some very specific wikipedia requirements of notability and verifiability. This is where should should focus your efforts. andy (talk) 09:39, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:34, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wilder High School

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

For now, let's just set aside the article's very impressive list of accomplishments and WP:GNG. The school's website in the infobox is a dead link and my browser suggests this nearby school district instead, which has no record of the school in its search. This calls the school's very existence into doubt, but I'm willing to see it salvaged. Inter change able|talk to me 22:36, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Idaho-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:41, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:41, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. A check of ed.gov shows a Wilder Middle/High School (grades 6 to 12) [3]. USGS calls it Wilder Junior-Senior High School. Google hits on less than reliable sources indicate this school apparently does exist. • Gene93k (talk) 22:52, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

further comment. The school district's new website here and the article's edit history indicate that Wilder High School and Wilder Middle-High School are one and the same. This school really exists and high schools almost always survive AfD. • Gene93k (talk) 23:10, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Gene's research. This is not to denigrate the nominator; you obviously did as much as you could before starting AFD. Nyttend (talk) 00:11, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've added a little bit of information about the school from the source Gene linked just after "grades 6 to 12". Nyttend (talk) 00:20, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - there are plenty of sources available on a combined search of the various name combinations by which this school is referred, to meet WP:GNG, as is the case routinely with high schools. TerriersFan (talk) 02:21, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep based on WP:HEY, TerriersFan, and Nyttend. Also, see User:Bearian/Standards#Notability_of_High_Schools_at_WP:AfD. I think this is a small yet notable junior/senior high school, from what I can tell. Bearian (talk) 21:41, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I believe the school fails standards 7 and 8 on that list - but I'm sure that it's going to survive AfD anyways. Inter change able|talk to me 18:30, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per TerriersFan. School is a high school, exists, and is listed in its district. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 08:05, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:34, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

International Cities of Peace

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

This organization appears yet to receive any significant coverage in reliable sources. Unable to find any despite good-faith search. ^Bongo_matic 22:09, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Two-year old...what, exactly? Marketing campaign? Lots of fluffy vagueness here. Web searches don't find anything useful from WP:RS's to demonstrate notability. They have lots of links in the article, but they seem either primary or do not seem to relate to the article subject. Also, beware of false hits--there seems to be or have been a UNESCO "city of peace" award predating this organization by some years. Fails WP:GNG. Also fails WP:NOTPROMOTION. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 23:13, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:48, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – I tried, too. Found it fails WP:GNG. Bongo and Hobbes are spot on here. JFHJr (㊟) 02:18, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG, clearly promotional. Mt king ^(edits) 03:18, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Significant progress has been made in helping foster grassroots initiatives around the world, especially in the Congo and Nepal. The Advisory Board includes high-level individuals including the foremost scholar on cities of peace, Peter van den Dungen. No individual receives any compensation for the volunteer work being done. As Executive Director, and someone like you who is spending a great deal of time volunteering, I hope you'll let us keep this Wiki page open in order to encourage peacemakers throughout the world. We will work on increasing citations and learning about the Wiki format and guidelines. Thank you. Please ask questions, if you like. November 15, 2011. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Peacescholar (talk • contribs) 18:30, 15 November 2011 (UTC) — Peacescholar (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

This is clearly a subject close to your heart, and it is for that reason you are not the person to be writing a encyclopaedia article on the organisation. Mt king ^(edits) 22:28, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as failing WP:GNG. Stuartyeates (talk) 08:15, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:36, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

White Friday

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

"White Friday is not actually a holiday..." Enough said. →Σ τ c. 21:45, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete "Sourced" to a blog called "whitefridaysales", and as far as I know I'm working the Friday before Thanksgiving along with the rest of the country (and I would think people would want to work that day to get money for the holiday season). SEO-packed bollocks, and an outright theft of content from The Bergen Record. Nate • (chatter) 21:59, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Is there an online source that will prove that this is a copyright violation? - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 08:02, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Check article source 2, second paragraph; it's definitively taken verbatim without one variation or paraphrase. Nate • (chatter) 08:39, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The only relevant source provided is a blog which has had only one post in its history -- about as far from a reliable source as one could get. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 22:09, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Strongest possible delete. The article says that White Friday is "the Friday before Thanksgiving Day in the United States." Guess what? That was today (yesterday UTC). And nobody recognized it as White Friday. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:18, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete. Failed WP:NEO. Fails WP:GNG. I'm frankly hoping that a WP:SNOWstorm will bury "White Friday". If it somehow survives, then body of article should be changed to reflect what Ghits show--that term is mostly proposed by various bloggers as their cutey-pie alternative name for "Black Friday". --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 23:42, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:44, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:44, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:44, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Hobbes. Zero reliable coverage, zero claim to notability under the article's own terms. WP:SNOW might be appropriate here. JFHJr (㊟) 01:29, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I don't think this qualifies as a copyright violation, else I would have speedily deleted it; there's an attempt to reference the source in the paragraph mentioned above, which is a quotation from an unrelated story. This remains a non-notable neologism. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 18:46, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Neutrality^talk 02:05, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Good Vibrations: Crossing Europe on a Bike Called Reggie

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

Non-notable book lacking GHits and GNEWS of substance. reddogsix (talk) 21:44, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I wasn't able to find anything to show that it's notable. The vast majority of the ghits were to various sites where you could purchase the book or for publicity sites that aren't considered reliable sources. It should also be mentioned that there's a COI since the article creator is also the author himself. Considering that his other edits consisted of him adding his website and book links to various pages, this just smacks of self-promotion. Tokyogirl79 (talk) 00:02, 14 November 2011 (UTC)tokyogirl79[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 18:53, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No Ghits, no Gnews, and the only reviews of the book are on non-notable blogs. --Madison-chan (talk) 21:40, 14 November 2011 (UTC)Madison-chan[reply]

Delete as comletely unreferenced. Stuartyeates (talk) 08:16, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not even in worldcat. (but unreferenced is not a reason for deletion. What is a reason is unreferenceable, that is, no RS can be found.) DGG ( talk ) 05:29, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Associated Press

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

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

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:36, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Lindsey Dryden

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

Non-notable individual lacking GHits and GNEWS of substance. reddogsix (talk) 21:43, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:43, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – There really is zero to be found. JFHJr (㊟) 02:29, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as lacking notability. Stuartyeates (talk) 08:17, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: as non-notable, per above. Quis separabit? 00:36, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep. Eluchil404 (talk) 04:15, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Last Day Of The Dinosaurs

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

It is not notable and lacks any references. A quick search for reliable references turns up nothing. PROD was attempted but was quickly taken down with no reason given. See WP:OR and WP:GNG. Also, bear this in mind:

If a topic has no reliable sources, Wikipedia should not have an article on it.
— Wikipedia, Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources

Chris (talk) 19:50, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD was not properly transcluded. — Train2104 (talk • contribs • count) 21:37, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —SW— ^comment 21:37, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:42, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – No significant coverage. And rightly so. It's a TV documentary that aired on one channel. It's just not notable. JFHJr (㊟) 01:34, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Can you say the same after the links I posted?--Cavarrone (talk) 10:57, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep: Passes WP:N and WP:GNG. As guideline says, notability requires only the existence of suitable independent, reliable sources, not their immediate citation. Here we have several GNews sources and more secondary sources could be found via Google, like Wired Magazine, BoothFilms, Toronto Sun, The Sun, Real Screen, Broadcaster Magazine, The New Zealand Herald. Also passes WP:TVSHOW as a show aired on an (inter)national-wide cable-TV, claimed as the most watched Discovery special ever, internationally released on DVD, also nominated for two Gemini Awards ([[4]]) and one VES Award ([[5]] & [[6]]).--Cavarrone (talk) 10:56, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Topic is meeting WP:GNG, per: [7], [8], [9], and to a lesser extent [10] and [11]. Northamerica1000^(talk) 17:10, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Click the Google news archive search at the top of the AFD, and you can find significant coverage in reliable sources. Remember to follow WP:BEFORE so not to waste everyone's time. Dream Focus 01:10, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep - Very notable documentary per sources provided by Cavarrone. --Madison-chan (talk) 02:35, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Black Kite (t) 00:29, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OMAC (Industry Organization)

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

Only reference is non-independent. If they are the "global" organization as they claim, they'd have better sources. -Vaar sivius ("You've made a glorious contribution to science.") 21:27, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Vaarsivius, why don't you propose that the article is improved rather than suggesting that it is removed? I am working on entering other references. --CaliViking (talk) 21:47, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:41, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – After several tries, I wasn't able to find significant coverage from reliable sources on this subject. A few singular and passing mentions in a small number of reports and an even smaller number of print publications. And CaliViking: if this organization is at all notable, someone here will find it in a reliable source that does something more than mention it in passing. We're all supposed to look into research. JFHJr (㊟) 01:44, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for looking into this JFHJr, I appreciate that you are working hard to make Wikipedia a reliable reference site. Please be aware that this is an industry organization that is very well known among people who work with industrial automation systems. If you click here Google search for "Organization for Machine Automation and Control" you will see that the organization is referenced more than 12,000 times. I realize that it may seem to be a very narrow subject if you are not working in the field of industrial automation, but for people like me who are actively working in this field it is very important. Please also be aware that I am not affiliated in any way with the organization, I have no personal gain from creating their wiki page. Please also see the PackML page that is closely related to OMAC. If you want to do further research, then please call the editor of any of the industry magazines that dominate this space such as Automation World, InTech, Packaging Automation, Food Processing. You may also call any of the major automation suppliers such as Siemens Automation, Rockwell Automation, Invensys/Wonderware (the company that I am working for), ABB, GE Automation, Schneider and ask for the person responsible for industrial software product management, they will all confirm the importance of this organization. Another option to confirm the importance of the organization is to contact ISA - International Society of Automation, which I believe is the largest organization in this space. OMAC is also well known in the academic world. I know that we are all supposed to look into research, and I look forward to seeing this article being expanded in content. CaliViking (talk) 19:10, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest that you read WP:GNG which is the primary guideline for inclusion in wikipedia or WP:ORG. As it stands, the article doesn't meet either criteria. Stuartyeates (talk) 08:18, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as meeting the general notability guideline. See the sources added as well as the many more available (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL). Note that for most of its lifetime (1994-2008), OMAC operated under the name Open Modular Architecture Controls, rather than Organization for Machine Automation and Control. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 15:49, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to PackML, which is what all the references seem to be about. Stuartyeates (talk) 18:44, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What of this book (pages 300-304) and the majority of these news archive results? Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 20:32, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. refs look independent enough to me. --Joopercoopers (talk) 00:59, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:45, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Chadwick Lawrence

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

Non Notable, local law firm, fails WP:GNG and / or WP:CORP Mt king ^(edits) 20:55, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:41, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:41, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as lacking in-depth coverage by independent third party sources. Stuartyeates (talk) 08:20, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no luck searching for "Chadwick & Son" either. - Pointillist (talk) 22:03, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 14:32, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Raleys Solicitors

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

No notable local law firm. Fails WP:GNG and/or WP:CORP Mt king ^(edits) 20:51, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:40, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:40, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - according to my standards, this fails, but it CLAIMS to be over 100 years old. What do others think? Bearian (talk) 21:48, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Age, size, revenue are all unimportant in and of themselves when assessing notability, the question is has this firm revived the significant coverage in RS's and my searching indicates no, it looks like a run of the mill local law firm, nothing special, they exist in every major town all over the world. Mt king ^(edits) 22:01, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as lacking in-depth coverage by independent third party sources. Stuartyeates (talk) 08:20, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:47, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Faux Pas (webcomic)

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

Unremarkable online comic strip. Google search on "Faux Pas" "Robert Carspecken" shows only 77 unique results, mostly Wiki mirrors or primary sources. Awards do not appear to be notable. MikeWazowski (talk) 19:54, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Webcomics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:39, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Seems to fail criteria for WP:WEB. The only thing that might keep it is that it won an Ursa Major Award, although that doesn't really seem to be enough of a major award to keep it. Tokyogirl79 (talk) 11:35, 15 November 2011 (UTC)tokyogirl79[reply]
Keep - a Google search on "Faux Pas" "Maragaret Carspecken" returns a much higher number of results - over 1600, from a wider variety of sources. mwalimu59 (talk) 04:21, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - more sources and a wider range, yes, but I've gone through the first ten pages of the search you posted and have yet to find anything that would pass WP:RS.... MikeWazowski (talk) 04:43, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Getting a lot of ghits is irrelevant since a lot of things can get a lot of ghits and still be considered non-notable. That doesn't prove notability per Wikipedia guidelines. Like Mike said, you have to have reliable sources to prove notability and at this point in time I can't find anything that would qualify as a reliable source. Tokyogirl79 (talk) 05:03, 16 November 2011 (UTC)tokyogirl79[reply]

Delete as lacking in-depth coverage by independent third party sources. Stuartyeates (talk) 08:21, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:WEB and WP:NOTE. No coverage at all in reliable sources, no major award wins, no nothing. Rangoondispenser (talk) 16:28, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep per WP:SNOW. Warden (talk) 22:14, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Socialism in One Country

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

notability Darkstar1st (talk) 19:45, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as notable. Edward Hallett Carr wrote a multi-volume work on this very subject, which is the top hit on Google Books, and by itself must surely constitute significant coverage. It is the subject of book chapters in Leon Trotsky and the Politics of Economic Isolation, Richard B. Day [12]; Decades of crisis: Central and Eastern Europe before World War II, Iván T. Berend [13]; Stalin and German Communism: A Study in the Origins of the State Party, Ruth Fischer, John C. Leggett [14]; The Passing of an Illusion: The Idea of Communism in the Twentieth Century, François Furet [15]. The nominator needs to review WP:BEFORE. Cusop Dingle (talk) 20:11, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

did you read the discussion on the talk page, Carr(the lone source for this term) also said this: The crucial point about Hitlerism is that its disciples not only believe in themselves, but believe in Germany. For the first time since the war a party appeared outside the narrow circles of the extreme Right which was not afraid to proclaim its pride in being German. It will perhaps one day be recognized as the greatest service of Hitlerism that, in a way quite unprecedented in German politics, it cut across all social distinctions, embracing in its ranks working men, bourgeoisie, intelligentsia and aristocrats. Germany Awake! became a living national faith Darkstar1st (talk) 21:26, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And so what? — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 21:40, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It was the base concept of Soviet society for nearly 60 years, and You still think it lacks notability? Anyway, many references could be found in translations of soviet ideologists and some other sources. Even Herbert Wells briefly covered this in Russia in the Shadows. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 20:25, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

do you have the sources in Russian or english where the term was 1st used? Darkstar1st (talk) 21:27, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Utopian socialists and nationalists have advocated the theory of socialism in a single country before this time. In Germany today, the theory of an “independent” national economy, which progressively diminishes its connection with world economy to the vanishing point “autarchy,” as it is called – is the reactionary ideal of Hitler’s Fascists. Marx and Engels specific ally polemicized against the idea of a national socialist utopia in all their writings. Even Stalin was compelled to admit that the two founders of scientific socialism never entertained the idea, when he said that the possibility of building socialism in a single country was first formulated by Lenin in 1915, Max Shachtman Genesis of Trotskyism the Theory of Socialism in One Country Darkstar1st (talk) 21:29, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, I don't. I'm neither historian, nor communist, and thus I don't keep this under my pillow. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 21:40, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Possibly limited in its referencing, but that's no reason for deleting a major concept like this. It was a total change around from the earlier 'world revolution' policy. Peridon (talk) 20:58, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A concept of major historical significance. The article needs expansion, and more references, not deletion. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:01, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. A one-word nomination that really needs a prior application of WP:BEFORE. Try Google Books for a start. Articles in need of improved referencing but on subjects of clear notability do not belong at AfD. AllyD (talk) 22:06, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 14:29, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Animash

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

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

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

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

Contested prod and redirect. Non-notable neologism, see WP:NEO, only sources are YouTube, see WP:V. Google news search shows no significant results. Standard search shows a host of unreliable sources and social media, but no significant coverage from independent reliable sources. MikeWazowski (talk) 19:40, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Reply: — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.205.105.89 (talk) 20:39, 12 November 2011 (UTC) (forgive my accent) I understand you're opinion but do not share it. Animashes are reasonably popular video's, not only on Youtube, but also being shown on DeviantART and others. The first reference was TVTropes, not Youtube. this page does miss references from DeviantART and other sites where animashes are displayed though. Compare it to the term brony which means that someone is a my little pony fan while he is a male older than 14 years. That term is unofficial and not seen in independent reliable sources. But it is added to wikipedia, because everyone agrees with it.[reply]

The same is for animash video's: officially, they do not exist. Same goes for Anime Music Video. But there are so many people that know about them, that outsiders call it Animash as well. (I am just an animash fan and made 2 short videos that almost no one has ever seen), but the page is good and objective enough for me: it tells about what an animash video is, how people normally create them (I do it in the exact same way as it is being described), and it gives a lot of youtube references to actual makers of the community (and not only the strong core but also some amateurs) to show what they create. There is no this guy is awesome you should watch this in the text. If it was, then I would agree with you. User: some anonymous guy. 21:33, 12 November 2011 (WET) — 81.205.105.89 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 20:39, 12 November 2011 (UTC).[reply]

Comment: This falls under WP:NOTNEO for neologisms. It doesn't matter how widely or not-widely it's used. It's not really recorded under reliable second party sources that talk about the term, so we can't really justify its inclusion as a page to itself at this point in time. Also, Wikipedia is not a "how to" manual. WP:NOTHOWTO The reason why AMVs have a page to themselves is because the phenomenon has been covered in reliable second party sources. Animash just isn't there yet. Tokyogirl79 (talk) 06:37, 15 November 2011 (UTC)tokyogirl79[reply]

Delete - The TVTropes reference seems to be the same author as Wikipedia, judging by username and spelling ("Malesian", "video's"). Otherwise this is just a lot of links to YouTube that could be the start of something notable later, or just peter out. - Ttwaring (talk) 22:13, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:38, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:38, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. While there were some links on google, there wasn't anything to show that it is notable enough. I didn't find any reliable sources. At the very, VERY most this would only merit a mention on the AMV page since it appears to be a branching off of the general idea of AMVs. So far this doesn't seem to be notable enough of a phenomena to where it would merit an article of its own at this time. Even besides the lack of sources to prove notability, this article is a mess of link spam and non-notable name dropping. I removed the worst of it, but overall this is almost entirely OR. Nobody's denying that animash does seem to exist, but it just seems to be an offshoot of AMV making but isn't nearly as well documented or as notable. Tokyogirl79 (talk) 21:40, 13 November 2011 (UTC)tokyogirl79[reply]

Comment: Also, I don't think the term animash is as wide of a phenomenon as you claim it is. I'm a pretty frequent watcher of AMVs and I've not really seen this term dropped that often. Many people will still label their non-anime music videos with AMV rather than animash. It's too new of a term to really be included here on Wikipedia. Also, a point of note as far as namedropping goes: unless they're mentioned in a reliable second party source (ie, in an online news article and not in a blog or on youtube), they don't get mentioned here on Wikipedia. Tokyogirl79 (talk) 21:51, 13 November 2011 (UTC)tokyogirl79[reply]

Delete or Merge - I love Animashes (this one is my all-time favourite) but the concept as a whole isn't nearly as well known as the AMV concept. Either delete or merge to the AMV article. --Madison-chan (talk) 00:43, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I've now included a one sentence addition to anime music video mentioning animashing with a tag for a citation to be added. There's no need to include any of the information from this article to that one since anything useful is already present and everything else isn't really encyclopedic. I'll try to do some cleaning of animash in case it does end up getting kept, but it's unsourced and would need a complete rewrite to be encyclopedic.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 06:47, 15 November 2011 (UTC)tokyogirl79[reply]

Delete as per WP:NOTNEO. Stuartyeates (talk) 08:22, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete per consensus and per CSD G4. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:03, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Checkmarx

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

Subject lacks significant coverage in reliable third party sources and fails to meet the notability guidelines for organizations. Alpha_Quadrant ^(talk) 19:23, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:37, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:37, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete (Again) Lack of coverage means fails WP:GNG, also promotional. Is this a CSD G4 ? Mt king ^(edits) 07:10, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as lacking in-depth coverage by independent third party sources. Stuartyeates (talk) 08:22, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:05, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Morphia (Java library)

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

Subject lacks a significant amount of coverage in reliable third party sources. It appears the subject fails the notability guidelines. Alpha_Quadrant ^(talk) 19:10, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom. Also if this is just a java library, it should be headed under another section along with other such items and not have a stand alone page for two sentences. Jab843 (talk) 21:36, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:35, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as lacking in-depth coverage by independent third party sources. Stuartyeates (talk) 08:22, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:05, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Maserati X

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

Subject lacks significant coverage in reliable third party sources. The article relies entirely on first party sources and contains a large amount of original research. The subject appears to fail the notability guidelines for biographies. Alpha_Quadrant ^(talk) 18:51, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:35, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete. Absence of significant coverage in reliable sources. It isn't helped that the major contributing author has a conflict of interest, which he admitted to at the AfD's talk page.[16] —C.Fred (talk) 22:03, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as lacking in-depth coverage by independent third party sources. Stuartyeates (talk) 08:23, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:07, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Spanish profanity

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

Is an article about Spanish Profanity that has had multiple issues for three years really need to be here? Lucasoutloud (talk) 18:05, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: There are also profanity articles for a number of languages see Category:Profanity by language. Mattg82 (talk) 18:16, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does not pass the general notability standards. --Cox wasan (talk) 22:10, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment What evidence do you present that this list does not meet our notability guideline WP:NOTESAL? given the sources in the article and the additional sources mentioned below?
Keep The article's issues do not warrant deletion because the topic is notable, as demonstrated by its sources. Warden (talk) 22:27, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The nominator cites the tags at the top as reasons for deletion, but there are sources on the page, and they are reliable. There are even sources that haven't been incorporated yet, such as this book. The concept is notable because several books have been written on the subject and because it is discussed in other literature such as in its use in classrooms and in poetry. AfD is not for cleaning up the article. There are problems with the article, but deletion is not the solution here. I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 23:17, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:34, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:34, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Nom provides no valid rationale for deletion. Why should this article be deleted? --Mike Cline (talk) 01:39, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Jethro. The concept is notable. The article is clearly a wreck, but deletion isn't the answer. JFHJr (㊟) 02:01, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but overhaul. The subject itself is notable; it's the current content that is full of things that should be deleted. Wikipedia is not a dictionary, and this article's current content does need to be decimated, especially those parts appear to be merely dictionary-like claims with non-WP:RS sources or no citations at all. This needs Wikipedia:Be bold, rather than the title itself being deleted. --Closeapple (talk) 02:18, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep: The nom has failed to advance a valid argument for deletion ... or indeed much of any "argument" at all. Whether an article has "multiple issues" or not is a content dispute properly addressed on the article's talk page. Ravenswing 06:11, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Plenty of encyclopedic material here. And no amount of time having maintenance tags on a worthy article is enough to warrant deletion. -- œ ^™ 09:47, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – Per sources in the article and:

Munier, Alexis; Martinez, Laura (2008). Talk dirty Spanish. Adams Media; Newton Abbot. ISBN 9781598697681

—Northamerica1000^(talk) 18:29, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep: per Ravenswing, particularly. Not that it's 100% germane, but there are also Wiki articles about profanity in Quebec French, Russian, and Esperanto, none of which have delete noms. --Seduisant (talk) 19:36, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - the need for editing is not the need for delete, unless it's so bad as to require blowing up and starting over. I don't see that, and I'm sure I'm not alone. Based on past precedent, TNT requires a very high standards of proof. Bearian (talk) 21:46, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Obviously notable topic. Just becuase the article sucks doesn't mean it should be deleted, it just needs to be improved. --Madison-chan (talk) 22:39, 14 November 2011 (UTC)Madison-chan[reply]
I can't judge the accuracy of the content of this page, but do not believe it should be deleted just because it deals with profanity. This sort of information can be very valuable to people learning foreign languages. If it's accurate, we should keep it. I don't see any comments challenging the content per se.

BarrCatherine (talk) 02:14, 15 November 2011 (UTC)Catherine Barr[reply]

Keep, significant coverage in secondary sources. — Cirt (talk) 16:42, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Purge unreferenced entries. Stuartyeates (talk) 08:24, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is clearly a topic that an encyclopedic should have in it. If people want to learn what something means, or see how commonly used profanity is different in different languages, this would be of use to them. Wikipedia is about learning. Dream Focus 20:35, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Basic and standard topic, as for other languages. There are a great many possible sources, and I wouldn't start removing entries unless checked. There is no deadline on improvements. Too many articles are being nominated here as "no improvement in X years". That's never a reason for deletion--the people nominating them would do much better to try improving them; if they try properly, and find it can not be done , then that can be a reason for deletion--depending on what the problem is. As everything here except an FA and GA could justify at least one improvement tag, --and always will, because every article here is becoming or will soon become outdated at least a little, such a criterion could remove 95% of the encyclopedia , This article was kept in 2005, and in 2007, both by very clear consensus, and I thing we might regard further nominations as disruptive. DGG ( talk ) 05:45, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:19, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

George Anderson Black

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

Being "great-grandfather" of a notable person is not enough claim for fame to make him notable. (notability is not inherited from others) Night of the Big Wind _talk 17:56, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No independent claim to notability. HangingCurve^{Swing for the fence} 19:59, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:33, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not notable. Stuartyeates (talk) 08:25, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 15:16, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Gathering Tree at Shiloh Missionary Baptist Church

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

The text of the article barely refers to the subject as given in the title. It talks a lot about medical experiments but the only use in the text is that there was an Oak tree in Shiloh. We can't tell if that is even an official name of a place/tree. I'm not convinced the references support the tree (rather than supporting that the medical experiments) existed. RJFJR (talk) 17:48, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Alabama-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:27, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The Gathering Tree article largely duplicates information contained in the church's Wikipedia article, Shiloh Missionary Baptist Church and Rosenwald School. • Gene93k (talk) 00:30, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The article as it stands is, at best, tangentially related to the subject and, while the references appear solid, the text feels like it's been lifted from another source. I'd endorse merging the salvageable content to Shiloh Missionary Baptist Church and Rosenwald School then replacing this with a redirect. I've added a {{merge-to}} tag to that effect to the article. - Dravecky (talk) 00:58, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
~~Merge~~ to Shiloh Missionary Baptist Church and Rosenwald School. Altairisfar (talk) 01:22, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Change to Delete. Altairisfar (talk) 21:16, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I'm not sure I see anything here that could be merged into Shiloh Missionary Baptist Church and Rosenwald School that isn't already there, and nothing that could be merged into Tuskegee syphilis experiment that would add anything to that article. It's not even a useful redirect, and no other articles currently link to it. Spyder_Monkey (Talk) 23:32, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- Spyder is on-point, there are already standing articles for the encyclopedic topics here. This is sort of like Boat in which George Washington Crossed the Delaware, if you follow... Carrite (talk) 17:24, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Tuskegee syphilis experiment. Stuartyeates (talk) 08:27, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to FreeDOS. However, I have restored the article given the improvement made to it. Black Kite (t) 00:30, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Pat Villani

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

Unreferenced article about a deceased software developer. I've been unable to find coverage of this individual in reliable sources to support notability. I suggested redirecting the article to the project he worked on, but the original author objected. WP:ANYBIO, WP:MEMORIAL. Pburka (talk) 16:45, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom. Keeping this page would seem to me as allowing it only for a memorial page. If this individual merited a page it should have happened within the last 10+ years. As above, WP:memorial must be considered, and I believe this page is only just that. I see very little room for growth, given what I could find online, I wouldn't even consider the existing information as a stub, due to the overal lack of significance. Jab843 (talk) 21:32, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- WHY? Yes, it's unreferenced because I'm not familiar with every obscure Wikipedia policy and too tired to read up on boring rules. I don't know of any references outside the funeral home's obit and some online summary of his 2000 NY UNIX Conference talk. Are those good enough? I doubt it. I know it's a wimpy article so far. I tried rallying support for others to help edit the page, but so far nobody has come forward. (I've contacted at least three leads, but none have panned out yet. It's only been three weeks (!) since I first created the page, and he only died unexpectedly less than three months ago. I'm not sure most people even know, at least old coworkers.) Besides, it's not like the article is wasting precious space on the servers. There are much more useless articles, and I'm (barely) astonished how quick people are to delete it. How about going after AC Transit Bus Fight or (related) Motherfucker pages first?? (I'm not kidding. What is important about those??) How will any decent articles ever get written if you delete them before they can mature? I don't find 90% of articles about people on Wikipedia notable, but I don't go around asking to delete their articles either. If even Wikipedia (online encyclopedia) doesn't care about biographies of software authors, who will? As for notability, he was neither a friend, coworker, nor relative of mine. I just thought he was worthy of being remembered for his accomplishments, not just for emotional reasons. But yes, his unexpected death was indeed the impetus for the article since I was surprised one didn't already exist. (I went way out of my way to add to Wikipedia here, and it's not encouraging seeing such a negative response.) Armslurp (talk) 23:53, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - One obvious reason we need references is verifiability. Although in this case I believe that you created the article in good faith and that the article is probably accurate, imagine if someone posted an obituary for a person who was still living. Without reliable evidence that the person is deceased Wikipedia could, in fact, be hosting content which was harmful and hurtful to the subject. Apart from the liability issue, we have a moral obligation to ensure that our content is accurate especially where it relates to living people. Pburka (talk) 14:39, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - If you check the original article, I did a link to the funeral home online. (Is that proof enough? Believe it or not, Find a Grave doesn't have him [yet??].) He announced being sick in April with some illness (unnamed) that "would take up all [his] time", hence his departure from the FreeDOS project (again). And that's all I knew, as I didn't want to pester him via email, until I found out via Jim Hall that he had passed away. (Still don't know the cause. I think? he had cancer years ago.) Me linking to the funeral home was hoping someone would (properly) add a photo since they had a ton for him. I didn't know the right way to insert one, so I didn't (so far), too much else on the brain. I didn't point directly to his section because I was afraid the URL was too fragile and might disappear, so just generic funeralhome.com was it. And someone very quickly deleted that (as well as a brief mention of his family, which I thought was relevant as personal/background info, sigh). No, I didn't add bagatela about him being Catholic or modeling the NY subway specifically because I figured someone would take issue with the notability of such trivia. Believe it or not, I was pretty cynical about Wikipedia already before writing the article. Good to know I was correct. Armslurp (talk) 22:20, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      - The style is encyclopedic, but the article has no sources. Why should I look for sources when you should have been using them to write the article? If you think that with more time you can find some newspaper articles, or some books, magazines, etc., with the information, you can ask for Userfy. Otherwise, expect that your work will be hidden from view without an apology...now is the time to save a copy. Also, you might consider making a webpage with what you have written, he does seems to be someone that should be remembered. And if you can get established magazines to write articles about him, then you have sourcing. Unscintillating (talk) 07:05, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:21, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:22, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nominator and per Jab. I think Armslurp's experience is directly related to his attitude that notability and sourcing are obscure policies. WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS isn't a reason to keep. Any and all information about this person's accomplishments can be covered in other articles with a passing mention. Personally, I think Armslurp should go around nominating pages if they're not encyclopedic. JFHJr (㊟) 02:41, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: as above. I also echo JFHJr's sentiments. Far from being "boring" or "obscure," the requirement that articles be reliably sourced is front and center as Wikipedia's fundamental, irreductible core policy, and anyone who after four years on Wikipedia finds it too much effort to follow is - frankly - not an asset to the encyclopedia. (The article's creator, after all, went no more "way out of his way" to create the article than have tens of thousands of anonymous editors in creating theirs.) It is not Wikipedia's "job" to care about biographies of software authors; it is Wikipedia's remit to care about well sourced biographies of notable people. A fallacy often expressed at AfD by aggrieved article creators is that if reliable sources aren't available for their subjects, Wikipedia's rules are at fault. Wrong: if reliable sources cannot be found discussing their subjects, the subjects are not notable. Ravenswing 06:25, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- It's easy to discount someone whom you don't know, especially online. Overall my contributions have always been very minor, and I've only created a new page twice (one very short [eventually inserted elsewhere], other an extremely useless Talk: page). I didn't remember even doing that until rechecking since it was so trivial. So no, I haven't had decent practice adding references, pictures, etc. I expected someone with more experience to help with these things eventually (coming weeks), but apparently not. As for being an asset, I can't help but wonder how you think deleting non-notable articles trumps those who actually write them. BTW, when I say "out of my way", I mean that I took the initiative to learn a bit about the author, create a decent (IMO) start of a page, and email a few people to weakly attempt to get outside contributors. The FreeDOS Wikipedia page already linked to his (blank) page for who knows how long, and I was initially surprised he didn't have one with any content. Yes, I think Wikipedia is at fault, not because the article is perfect as-is but because I don't see the problem. Why would anybody complain about an extra (very small) article? It's not doing any harm. But alas, a bio of a real human being isn't notable. I'm sorry his (past) life offends you guys so much. Armslurp (talk) 22:20, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - It's not that anyone's saying the guy offends their sensibilities, just that there's a protocol that absolutely must be followed as far as articles go, both in creating them as well as deleting them. You have to have reliable sources to prove that someone is notable as far as Wikipedia is concerned. It's good that you showed initiative, but this just falls short of what would be considered notable on Wikipedia. You also can't rely on other people to fill in the blanks and provide reliable sources that would prove notability and keep the article around. Unless it's something or someone that's very much in the public eye (ala Lindsay Lohan or American Horror Story), always assume that you will be the only one searching for sources and information to improve the article. Also, the best way to be taken seriously is to try to act calmly and maturely. I understand that you're upset that your article is up for deletion, but we've all had stuff get deleted, reverted, or Afc declined. It's just a way of life here on Wikipedia. If you really want to save the information that badly, I highly suggest looking into seeing if you can userfy the page. (WP:USERFY) That would allow you to keep the page on your own namespace and work on it until it's good enough to have a page on Wikipedia proper. As far as "it's just a tiny page", that's not really a valid argument. If we made an exception for this page then we'd have to make an exception for everyone who states that and then we'd have a lot of pages that wouldn't even begin to have any sort of notability to them. Tokyogirl79 (talk) 00:18, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - No objection to userfying here. Ravenswing 12:58, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Reply: As it happens, I've created over sixty articles and have over 30,000 edits, which has required quite a bit of work over the years. I just don't consider that to be "out of my way" or requiring initiative to the point that I'd demand special treatment - if I didn't want to do the work, I wouldn't have done the work, and no editor gets special treatment here, from the top of the contribution list down to a newcomer making his or her first edit. The problem is quite simple: Wikipedia requires that articles be properly sourced, and likewise requires that articles that cannot be properly sourced be removed. If the article creator feels aggrieved and "cynical" because Wikipedia has standards subjects must meet in order to qualify for articles, I'm sure he could take his work to the Encyclopedia Britannica or to World Book Encyclopedia and see if they're more lenient than Wikipedia is. Ravenswing 02:19, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Okay, new creator who is buried under Wikipedia's massive rules edifice and no sources showing = no verifiability. We can all agree on that. Now let's take a fresh look and see if this is an individual who meets General Notability Guidelines, shall we? I've got THIS INDICATION that the individual existed, that he was a "Compaq Unix Software Engineer" important enough to be a speaker at a New York computer group in Nov. 2000. Carrite (talk) 17:31, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Villani was the author of the 2001 book Programming Win32 under the API. Carrite (talk) 17:35, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Villani seems to have been the developer of something called FreeDOS Kernel, an MS-DOS emulator, PER THIS. Carrite (talk) 17:37, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So far, none of those sources have any relevance to the GNG, which holds that a subject is considered notable if he is discussed in "significant detail" in multiple reliable sources. Ravenswing 17:42, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(EC: not directed towards the above) Which brings me to Wikipedia's page on DOS, which notes: "The FreeDOS project began 26 June 1994, when Microsoft announced it would no longer sell or support MS-DOS. Jim Hall then posted a manifesto proposing the development of an open-source replacement. Within a few weeks, other programmers including Pat Villani and Tim Norman joined the project. A kernel, the command.com command line interpreter (shell) and core utilities were created by pooling code they had written or found available. There were several official pre-release distributions of FreeDOS before the FreeDOS 1.0 distribution was released on 3 September 2006. Made available under the GNU General Public License (GPL), FreeDOS does not require license fees or royalties." Now look, there's not a single damned thing so far that counts as a "reliable source," but if you aren't getting very uneasy by now that this is a possibly an important freeware pioneer, you aren't paying attention... Carrite (talk) 17:43, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Or that we haven't seen any cites saying so, which is the only factor which matters, as you know perfectly well. Speculating as to the fellow's importance because he's listed as a developer on a project is just that - speculation - and we can infer nothing from it. Failing the GNG, the only other applicable criteria are those of WP:CREATIVE, but the bar is set pretty high there, and it's near-to-impossible to pass WP:CREATIVE without satisfying the GNG. Ravenswing 17:48, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, checking the criteria given at WP:CREATIVE, I see points 1 and 3 applying to our case here. Pat has been important for the FreeDOS project, and if you check the various freedos-user and freedos-devel(oper) discussion forums (some of them are online, but this may not be the case for all the older discussions in the 1990s - I do have archives, but can't access them easily now). He is frequently named and cited in there by co-developers. This, beyond any doubts, proves WP:CREATIVE point 1, not because these were "reliable sources" as is, but simply because they exist. Nobody will question the existance of FreeDOS and these mailing lists. Also, it is without any question, that he was the sole developer and contributor of the original version of the FreeDOS kernel, and, with other developers, continued to work on it over many years. Nobody needs a reliable source to prove simply facts like this, because it is obvious, beyond any doubt. Anyone can look this up in the source code archives, if he likes. This is equivalent to the example given in WP:OR, that Paris is the capital of France. This is obvious and it is, as per WP policies, enough to assume that the fact is verifyable ("a source exists"). It is not necessary to actually bring forward sources for this. The ultimative proof of facts is the source code of the operating system. The discussions in the mailing lists can be seen as mere "reflections" on this, and it doesn't matter that mailing lists are not reliable sources, if the topics discussed there are about facts, which are beyond any doubt.

WP:CREATIVE point 3 applies at least to some extent, the person has created and played a major role in co-creating a significant and well-known work and collective body of work, FreeDOS. Besides Villani's own book about FreeDOS, the operating system has also been covered in other books (I think, I even have one of them in my library - will have to recheck this). The FreeDOS product / work also has been the subject of many thousands reviews in the net and (understandably to a much lesser extent) in printed magazines, and whenever there was an abstract about the system's history, Pat Villani is briefly named as the original author of the kernel. I would not count most of these reports as reliable sources in the WP sense, but again, reliable sources are not needed to proof obvious facts, such as 1 + 1 = 2, or Paris is the capital of France, or the FreeDOS kernel was originally developed by Pat Villani. It is enough to assume verifyability, and verifyabilty exists in the source code which is freely available to anyone to look at (although non-developers probably won't be able to make much sense of it).

WP:ANYBIO point 2 may apply here as well, although it is a bit too early for historians to write about DOS. ;-) (There was some coverage, when DOS became 25, and typically FreeDOS was mentioned there as well as a newer alternative to MS-DOS.) But if historians will do so in the future, FreeDOS will clearly be one of the DOS operating systems discussed alongside MS-DOS, PC DOS and DR-DOS, and if authors / developers will be mentioned, it is clear that Pat Villani will have to be named as the original author of DOS-C, which became the FreeDOS kernel, just as Tim Paterson will have to be named as the original author of 86-DOS, the operating system which became MS-DOS. There wasn't really much original or innovative in this work of Paterson, 86-DOS was basically a (rather buggy) clone of CP/M (which was originally designed and developed by Gary Kildall, a major innovator of the industry, who influenced the core design of operating systems and compilers up to the present). 86-DOS/MS-DOS had many drawbacks compared to CP/M, but it was cheaper and also came with some notable improvements, such as a different buffering logic and the introduction of the FAT12 filesystem (which, however, was actually based on prior work by Marc McDonald). Nevertheless, the product became important by circumstances and so became Tim Paterson as its original author. In analogy, there wasn't really much new in DOS-C/FreeDOS, an operating system with the intended goal to be a clone/emulator of MS-DOS. However, FreeDOS became important because it was free and open-source and stepped in when MS-DOS was abandoned (with the only other alternative being DR-DOS, arguably much more advanced in compatibility, stability and feature set, but a commercial product and closed-sourced). While not 100% compatible, for many applications, where DOS was and still is used today, FreeDOS is "good enough" (and in the tools/utilities department, it is even much better than MS-DOS). Finally, the fact, that a DOS kernel was successfully written in a high-level language such as C, is innovative and original, and this must be attributed to Pat Villani.

--Matthiaspaul (talk) 12:39, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I had a look in my lib and besides Villani's own book on FreeDOS "FreeDOS kernel - An MS-DOS Emulator for Platform Independence & Embedded Systems Development", I found both FreeDOS and DOSEMU to be covered in numerous places in the book "The Multi-Boot Configuration Handbook" by Roderick W. Smith, published in 2000 by Que, ISBN 9780789722836. Villani isn't mentioned explicitly, but neither are any other people. As per WP:CREATIVE, if the work is covered in reliable sources, this makes its original creator ("a person who has created, or played a major role in co-creating, a significant or well-known work, or collective body of work") likely to be notable as well. --Matthiaspaul (talk) 13:41, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps I should explain why a DOS kernel being written in C instead of assembly language is important and quite an achievement, given that many other operating systems are written in high-level languages and nobody recognizes this as something special. The reason, why this is much more difficult for a DOS kernel, is that most "serious" DOS programs do not only use the documented APIs (which can be easily emulated), but retrieve and change data in internal data structures of the operating system. In some cases, software even starts patching code sections in the runtime image of the DOS kernel - Windows, for example, is known to do this to quite some extent. For this to work, even intrinsical details deep inside the DOS kernel become important to be properly emulated. This goes down to the exact memory layout and order of internal data structures and tables, calling conventions of internal functions, and the emulation of exact opcode strings in various locations. Once it is known, that some application depends or modifies such DOS internals, it is "relatively" easy to emulate this in assembly language, but in a high-level language such as C you do not normally have any control over the machine level representation. These problems do not occur in most modern operating systems, since their applications do not (and cannot) normally use internal structures of the operating system and communicate only via officially documented methods, but it is an integral part of the "business" under DOS. --Matthiaspaul (talk) 10:53, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ Comment - I'm ultimately not seeing anything that gets this article subject over the GNG bar. There might be a few biographical bits that can be merged to FreeDOS, such as Mr. Villani's dates. There might be a case that this was a key software pioneer, but I'm frankly out of my element. My condolences to Mr. Villani's family and friends for their recent loss, deletion does not indicate Mr. Villani's life or work is dismissed as unimportant, only that there is insufficient substantial and independently published source material to support an article according to Wikipedia's long-established notability guidelines. Carrite (talk) 17:59, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Striking Delete recommendation. I have a hunch that this is an individual worthy of encyclopedic biography, despite being unable to find sourcing myself. Carrite (talk) 16:03, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

- No Contest - I'm over the five stages of grief at this point. So I accept whatever Wikipedia decides. (It's not like I have a choice either.) I just watched the page like a hawk and kept expecting people to add to it, and nobody did. And then it was nominated for deletion (only three weeks later, which I thought was exceedingly short) and pretty much immediately redirected to FreeDOS, which literally said nothing about him except his name. (In fact, as mentioned, the link was already there, just to a blank page; same for Tim Norman, whom I know literally nothing about.) I just don't understand how anybody thinks you can inline anything about Pat himself into the FreeDOS article without being majorly off-topic. "FreeDOS was based upon DOS-C, a rewritten GPL version of DOS/NT (once used commercially for 68000 machines) by Pasquale "Pat" Villani, a competent OS engineer from New Jersey who used to work at DEC/Compaq and later at Vonage when not modeling the NY subway system or doing amateur ham radio or attending St. Robert Bellarmine church." (Seems a bit long and off-topic if all you care about is FreeDOS. And that's obviously excluding dates, mailing list archives, technotes, etc., which I seem to gather aren't really notable sources.) I guess if I actually owned the FreeDOS book I could hope (?) it had some relevant bio info on him to quote from. But sadly, I don't think a funeral home online is considered a reliable source, and certainly NY Unix conference sounds good, but I wasn't personally there. (Look, I already admitted on freedos-user that I probably wasn't the guy to write the article, but since nobody else even pretended to volunteer, I had to do something. Unfortunately, I seriously didn't know anybody would complain ... as long as I could get others to help eventually.) The simple truth is that FreeDOS isn't as popular as Linux by a long shot, maybe if it was called PatDOS or something. And nobody thought he'd die so young, so I guess he was just majorly overlooked by mainstream media. Alas. Anyways, yes, it should probably go on a private website and not Wikipedia if you guys don't want it. Armslurp (talk) 18:48, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - P.S. Not to pick on you guys too hard, but "long-established" seems a stretch. The very first (anonymous) 2002 revision of the FreeDOS article literally only says this (and took almost two years before reaching over 1 kb): "An open source DOS initiated by Jim Hall. http://www.freedos.org/". It's hard for me to match such quality. :-)
Keep - Pat Villani has been the original author of what later, in 1994, became the kernel of FreeDOS, the core component of the operating system. For those who don't know, this is the equivalent of what is called IO.SYS/MSDOS.SYS in MS-DOS, IBMBIO.COM/IBMDOS.COM in PC DOS, and DRBIOS.SYS/DRBDOS.SYS in DR-DOS. FreeDOS, a free and open-source MS-DOS compatible operating system, had a huge impact on the industry and is still being actively developed and used in many places today (although it is not a mainstream OS, and, if used in embedded systems, it is not immediately visible to end-users). Without Pat's contribution and continued maintenance of the kernel over many years, FreeDOS would hardly have had the success it has.

Pat started to develop his operating system in the late 1980s as a vehicle for the development of device drivers. IIRC, it was called XDOS in ca. 1988, NSS-DOS in 1991, and DOS/NT in 1992. It was not originally designed for Intel x86 processors, but for Motorola 68000 CPUs (which have a completely different instruction set). However, because he wrote his OS in the C high-level-language, it was easily portable across different system architectures. His system was therefore called DOS-C, when it became part of the FreeDOS project (still called "Free-DOS Alpha 1") in ca. October 1994.

While the front-end API to applications was inspired by the MS-DOS API, the originally contributed version, though functional as is, was only loosly compatible with MS-DOS programs. Lots of internal data structures were completely different from those found in the MS-DOS kernel, so misbehaving programs did not run. However, prior to the integration of DOS-C into the FreeDOS project, this hasn't been a problem, because Pat didn't intend to run out-of-the-box DOS programs on his OS, but develop his own applications and drivers for it. Nevertheless, for FreeDOS, it now was a requirement to load existing DOS drivers and run DOS applications without recompilation, so over the course of the years lots of things were changed in the kernel and gradually the FreeDOS kernel became more and more MS-DOS compatible.

Back in 1994/1995 or so, I still remember discussions with Pat and others, where I stated, that an operating system written in a high-level language will never be able to become 100% MS-DOS compatible, since too many undocumented "hacks" are necessary to achieve full MS-DOS compatibility and support dirty applications, which cannot be emulated easily in a high-level language (MS-DOS, PC DOS and DR-DOS are all written in x86 assembler), and also because the output of a compiler is much less efficient as professionally written hand-optimized assembler code, and this counts quite a bit under DOS. While I still think that this statement holds true, FreeDOS has meanwhile reached a level of compatibility, I would not have expected. Been written in C has probably also been a factor in attracting more developers and make debugging much easier.

So, if FreeDOS is notable, Pat Villani is as well. The article will clearly need more work and references, but this is just a matter of time. FWIW, I can personally confirm the FreeDOS stuff written there to be fact, and I think I have recently read the bio details in his obituary, but I would have to recheck this. Also, I own his book "The FreeDOS kernel", and while I don't have the time to cite from it right now, I may do so later on. Therefore I recommend to not delete this article stub, but to keep and improve it. --Matthiaspaul (talk) 20:22, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

- YIKES! Matthias, it's you! (This guy also heavily deserves his own page, at least for his DR-DOS experience.) You're mostly correct, of course, but I count five to two, so I think we lose. :-( --2011-11-15T23:25:31‎ Armslurp

Blush. ;-)

AfD is not a voting process. If it can be reasonably shown, that the subject meets WP's criteria of notability, a single recommendation to keep should be enough. At least in my book, a key developer of an operating system, which is used on uncountable desktop and embedded machines worldwide, is quite notable. And Pat was not only that, but also one of the "fathers" of FreeDOS and for several years the project leader. From the arguments brought forward above, I seem to understand that it wasn't really clear what exactly "FreeDOS" and a "kernel" is and what role and impact Pat might have had in the project. With the additional information given here we might have helped the others to get a better picture on this already. I don't think it would be too difficult to find references to back up the stuff mentioned in the article, it would just need some effort to note everything down. I seem to remember there were also some articles in the printed press mentioning him when FreeDOS 1.0 was released, but it may take a while to track them down. --Matthiaspaul (talk) 00:45, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

But for completeness, here's a rough Pat-related timeline (from what little I can gather from random searching on Google and Google Groups' comp.os.msdos.misc archives):

sometime in 1994 - MS claims to soon discontinues stand-alone MS-DOS in favor of Win95 (aka, MS-DOS 7.0 + Win 4.0 bundled)

June? 1994 - Jim Hall starts P.D. DOS project and publishes some utils (and manifesto, compatibility, todo, etc.) but no kernel yet

Nov. 1994 - Pat donates DOS/NT kernel as "non-commercial" closed source

May 1995 - Free-DOS alpha 3 released (now with Pat's GPL'd DOS-C kernel)

Aug. 1996 - _FreeDOS Kernel_ is published (in paper form)

1996? - DOSEMU [Hans Lerman?] succeeds in adapting to work with DOS-C kernel (instead of only proprietary MS,PC,DR)

1996? 1997? Caldera's OpenDOS isn't really "open" enough for most people (soon closed)

July 1997 - Pat defends GPL'd Free-DOS' bugginess, esp. since he works on it for free ("hundreds of hours")

the printed book made little money, took him "two years to write" (for personal gratification)

but he still has a day job working as (unnamed, DEC Tru64??) OS engineer

1998? - FreeDOS beta1

2001? - Pat leaves the project (colon cancer? and?) "disgusted with the bozos"

2001 - FreeDOS beta5, beta6, beta7

April 2002 - FreeDOS beta8 (last to have premade full floppy install set images)

IIRC still using Pat's very slow floppy accessing code

2003 - OpenWatcom 1.0 (which supports all DOS-specific compilation models, can build kernel)

2006 - FreeDOS 1.0 final (MS-DOS compatible) finally released

?? - dunno, I had never been in contact with him until Jim went on extended hiatus in 2009

which is when Pat stepped in again as head (and I really only barely jumped in after 2006)

2009 - Pat rejoins FreeDOS as head, lots of ideas (and notes), though no major release

(still lots of little updates, but there is little coordination, volunteers are extremely scarce)

April 2011 - Pat gets sick (unknown cause) and publicly leaves, Jim returns

late 2011 - some unfinished 1.1 test#3 work, Pat dies, not much else :-( --2011-11-15T23:31:20‎ Armslurp

Comment: I'm tempted to suggest that we sit on this one, to see whether there are obituaries published in the next couple of months. Stuartyeates (talk) 08:29, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: In comments to other statements above I have given some explanation why I find this subject to be notable although it does not seem to be easy to find a reliable source directly supporting Villani's notability in short time. My argumentation above is an indirect one along the line that FreeDOS is a notable work (proved formally) and Villani as the original developer of the FreeDOS kernel has thereby become notable as well (or "is likely to be notable" as WP:CREATIVE puts it). Nevertheless, it would be better to have reliable sources directly mentioning him, not only his work - they may exist, but I could not find them online so far. It has been suggested to wait a while to see if it will be covered in the press once the "news" spreads. It has also been suggested to merge the contents into the FreeDOS article (or user page) and redirect Pat Villani to FreeDOS, something I would support as well if the Villani article would otherwise be deleted, however, I would still prefer it to remain a separate article with a scope different from what can be done in the FreeDOS article. As I see it, his biographical details would hardly belong in the FreeDOS article, and we may be able to flesh this out a little over time. The Villani article could also have a short section on how DOS-C came into existance and later became the FreeDOS kernel, and it could discuss Villani's achievement in developing a DOS-compatible kernel in a high-level language such as C (instead of in assembly language, which would have been a more natural choice from the viewpoint of DOS system-level development). Nevertheless, I don't envision the article to ever become longer than perhaps one or two pages, unless Villani would be known also for other public achievements besides his fundamental involvement with FreeDOS. I can't comment on this, as I knew him from the FreeDOS project only. If the article is not deleted, I would be willing to contribute some bits to it over the course of months and add some references, but it might be a wasted effort for as long as a Damocles sword such as AfD hangs above the article. Therefore, I'd like to learn the other commentors' view on this, especially those who suggested a deletion. Do you still strictly feel the article should be deleted or do you now, with possibly a bit more background on Villani's involvement with FreeDOS, see some form of notability (although it would still require some degree of goodwill in the interpretation of the policies as it stands so far)? --Matthiaspaul (talk) 15:15, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hm, perhaps I have found what we're looking for (but it's not online any more, unfortunately). At the time FreeDOS 1.0 was released in 2006, FreeDOS was also covered in the news - online, broadcasted and in printed press. One news on FreeDOS explicitly mentioning Pat Villani as the original author of the kernel seems to have been broadcasted in ZDF (Zweites Deutsches Fernsehen), one of Germany's national public-sector television channel, on 2006-10-21. Google's cache still reveals a snippet of what appears to have been online, "Der Welt ein Debüt geben", heute.de Nachrichten, ZDFheute.de: "Dann meldete sich ein Entwickler, Pat Villani, der schon mal einen DOS-Kernel namens "DOS/NT" geschrieben hatte und bereit war, ihn freizugeben", which seems to have been online under the following link (but has been removed meanwhile): [17]]. I haven't seen it myself, so I cannot comment on it, but it obviously mentioned Villani. --Matthiaspaul (talk) 16:07, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)Userfy Even if we agree that the software engineer is sufficiently notable (WP:N), the article still has zero sources. You would have an article with no verifiable (WP:V) content. As far as the possibility of "some degree of goodwill", anything is possible, we even have a policy called WP:IAR, which means that we always allow for the possibility of ignoring all of the rules. But for whatever reason Wikipedia attracts people whose focus in life is getting articles here deleted. In addition the administrators have a huge work-load in deleting literally thousands of articles on a daily basis created by people all over the world for the vaguest of reasons, and as a group they get to the point that they have little interest in seeing the silver lining in the cloud. Your willingness to work on the article over the course of months suggests that you ask for incubate or userfy. Unscintillating (talk) 16:40, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. No issues with the sourcing but the subject is insufficiently notable. Redirect to FreeDOS. --Joopercoopers (talk) 01:03, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. In the hope I can address most of raised issues, in particular to give evidence of notability, I have meanwhile started to improve and expand the article and added various references as well (perhaps not the best possible ones, but for most of the important facts there is more than a single source and I did my best to cross-check the sources to be accurate). There is at least one series of published articles still to be added, and I am trying to track down more patents as he held more than just the two I found so far. Another area to look at is his role as maintainer of his "Linux for Windows 95" distribution and his early source code contributions to the Free Software Foundation/Richard Stallman. --Matthiaspaul (talk) 21:27, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:21, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Zhu Xiaodong

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

This article, then named "Zhu Xiao Dong," was previously nominated (not by me, who was at that time unaware of it) in 2008 for deletion, and the result of the discussion was "keep" (with only two people expressing opinion at that time). However, I still don't believe that notability was shown; the argument for notability was largely due to a single newspaper interview. The article was created by an editor who has made no other edits. There is no Chinese Wikipedia article. I don't see where the notability is. Delete. Nlu (talk) 16:44, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Further comment. It should be noted that the entries that come up during Google Scholar search are to what appears to be a completely different person: an economics professor at the University of Toronto. --Nlu (talk) 16:47, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Source (singular) does not establish notability. It did however, introduce me to the translated phrase "Cooking cow horse masticate skin blending" for which I am thankful. Tigerboy1966 (talk) 22:30, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:19, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:20, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:20, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete He's of Chinese persuasion. And I mean that in the most respectful way possible. 173.21.39.80 (talk) 01:42, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – The subject fails WP:BASIC requirements of substantial coverage; he's not notable as an WP:ACADEMIC, either. JFHJr (㊟) 02:07, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete While I'm sure he is a fine surgeon, there is no evidence that he meets WP:BIO or WP:ACADEMIC. BTW I have NO idea what user 173.21.39.80's "argument" above is supposed to mean. --MelanieN (talk) 01:54, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as lacking independent coverage. Stuartyeates (talk) 08:29, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 12:10, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

International Paint

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

Article about a paint company. The only independent reference supplied, the book "Dutch and Flemish still-life paintings" does not contain any reference to "International Paint" according to a search on Google Books, so seems completely unrelated. This leaves only one reference to the company's website, which is not a independent, published source. So the notability of this subject has not been established. Sparthorse (talk) 16:23, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

[18] Phil Bridger (talk) 16:41, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for finding the specific reference. However, I don't think this is referring to the same company. According to the article, the company International Paint was founded by brothers called Holzapfel in 1881. The reference is to a company called International Paint and Compositions Company founded by someone called Hartzman. If you look at [19] which is, I believe, the subject of the article, I think it is clear these are different companies. If we could get further references, it might be easier to tell. Sparthorse (talk) 17:18, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The specific reference, with the page number, was already in the article, and if you read it a bit more carefully you will see that the International Paint and Compositions Company was founded by someone called Holzapfel with someone called Hartzman. If you then, as I suggested when I contested the WP:PROD tag, use Google Books searches you will find that the International Paint and Compositions Company was later renamed to International Paint and acquired by Akzo. I have no interest in spending my time expanding this article, but it is pretty clear that plenty of sources exist that can be used by others to do so. Phil Bridger (talk) 17:35, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Can't say about "Dutch and Flemish still-life paintings" but search by Google Books gives several results confirming the fact which was referenced by "Dutch and Flemish still-life paintings". There is also a number of search results by Google Books and Google News. Did you checked these before nominating this article for AfD? Beagel (talk) 17:15, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:18, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. To explain the notability of the company, I have augmented the article with a historic paragraph (with public refs), outlining the long history of the company, indicating the importance of International to the Tyne and Wear industrial area. I'm searching for public references into paint markets, which can clarify the huge size of the company (by far the largest) in its field. I expect help for the group of volunteers later this week. Wim van Dorst (talk) 23:18, 14 November 2011 (UTC).[reply]
Userify as subject is close to notability but some referencing and detail issues need to be sorted. Stuartyeates (talk) 08:32, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I've now added several independent (non AkzoNobel) references. Further details to be added are about the production sites (locations, capacity) and where possible numerical data. Is that what you had in mind? Wim van Dorst (talk) 17:32, 19 November 2011 (UTC).[reply]
I'll say the word keep in bold just in case my position isn't clear from my edits above. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:14, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. As I said in my previous comment, there are number of references. In addition, International Paint is a market leader in its segment. Beagel (talk) 19:58, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 15:14, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Berger Paints Caribbean Limited

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

Article about a local subsidiary of a paint company. The only references are to the company's website, so there is no independent evidence this company is notable. Article in its present state clearly does not meet Wikipedia's guidelines on articles about companies. Sparthorse (talk) 16:11, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Caribbean-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:15, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:15, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as lacking independent coverage. Stuartyeates (talk) 08:32, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 15:15, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

National Agents Alliance

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

Not notable. No secondary sources. No newspaper or magazine articles (except for one article about the founder in a local business publication, ref'd in article). The only mentions I can find online are either on company web sites, on web sites of MLM participants, or on scam web site forum pages. Joja lozzo 16:08, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:17, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:17, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as lacking independent coverage. Stuartyeates (talk) 08:33, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 14:30, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rabih Najjar

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

Declined Prod. Prod reason was "Per WP:NFOOTY never played on a team recognized as in a fully professional league. No demonstration of passing WP:GNG." Decliner claimed " the fifteen years old he was chosen to participate in some of the first team games in the Lebanese Premier League." asserts that they appeared in a game on a team in a fully professional league. The Fully Professional League team list does not list Lebanon under any heading. The Lebanese Premier League does not claim fully professional. There might be Local Notability for this player, but this uncited BLP is woefully lacking in quality. Hasteur (talk) 13:50, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 20:07, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:15, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nom. Mr. Najjar has not played in a fully pro league, or for the Lebanese national team, meaning the article fails WP:NSPORT, and the absence of significant coverage, it fails WP:GNG as well. Sir Sputnik (talk) 18:55, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 11:58, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's update remarks: After the author has invested a significant amount of effort into this to attempt to bring this article up to the required notability standards it still fails. Updating to let the closing admin be aware that I am monitoring the work being done here. Hasteur (talk) 17:38, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I really appreciate your feedback and guidance about this article.Actually, I want to improve the article in order to fulfil Wikipedia standars, and to help creating a Lebanese football database not only on this player but also on other players who made the history of the game in our country, and unfortunately the Lebanese media archives also clubs ones do not have enough web sources to support the articles we are writing about.Football leb (talk) 13:13, 15 November 2011 (KSA)

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 14:33, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Lingua ac Communitas

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

Unreferenced 1x yearly journal. Declined PROD. Concern = Fails to meet criteria for notability at WP:NJOURNAL Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 12:52, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:15, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: A very quick Google Scholar search found references to this journal in three other journals (Husserl Studies, Problems of Sustainable Development, and Problemy Ekorozwoju) plus a monograph and a dissertation. I suspect that a trip to the library would reveal sufficient citations to satisfy NJournals criteria 2, "The journal is frequently cited by other reliable sources." Cnilep (talk) 04:16, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. My quick search did not reveal anything, but if those sources can be added, I'll withdraw this AfD and close it. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:44, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Most of the references mentioned by Cnilep have now been integrated. (talk) 13 November 2011 (UTC)

The trip to the library was less easy than I expected: my university's library does not subscribe, and as far as I can tell the journal is not indexed in MLA, Ebsco, JSTOR, or Web of Knowledge. However, I did find the following articles citing other articles included in the journal. Like most of the citation I found, these are written in German or Polish.

Greule, Albrecht. 1999. "Sprachloyalität – Sprachkultur – Sprachattraktivität. Warum noch Deutsch lernen?" Informationen Deutsch als Fremdsprache 5(26) 423-431. (cites Greule, Albrecht. 1992. Aufgaben und Probleme der modernen deutschen Sprachpflege)
Eaniec, Wojciech. 2001. "Husserl bibliography." Husserl Studies 17(2). (cites Glombik, Czeslaw. 1999. Bronislaw Bandrowski i jego zwiazki z getyngeskim seminarium filozoficznym)
Zieba, Włodzimierz. 2007. "Filozoficzno-aksjologiczne zaplecze ekorozwoju. Philosophical and axiological basis of ecodevelopment." Problemy Ekorozwoju 2(1) 19-25. (cites Rosenthal, S.B. (n.d.) Language and reality: The alien paths of classical pragmatism and Rorty)

Cnilep (talk) 07:25, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately links or references to articles in the journal are not an assertion of its notability. The jounal either needs a high jounal ranking (see Wikipedia:WikiProject Academic Journals), or articles published about it in the established press, and not being indexed in MLA, Ebsco, JSTOR, or Web of Knowledge gives me pause. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 09:56, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I concur; my findings are (contra my original expectation) not enough to satisfy NJournal. Cnilep (talk) 02:51, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Husserl Studies and The New Synthese Historical Library (and possibly some of the other references too (I cannot assess that)) seem to me to meet the criterion. Universityuser (talk) 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Delete It is often, unfortunately, difficult to establish notability for academic journals. This journal has been around for some time, but nevertheless, it does not seem to be included in any major selective database. That there are articles in other journals that cite articles from this journal is to be expected. That there apparently are only very, very few is more worrisome and shows a lack of notability. --Crusio (talk) 16:09, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no evidence of independent third party coverage. Stuartyeates (talk) 05:33, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Notability is questionable. and the article is a puff piece--but the keeps have it. Keep voters are urged to prune the article and make it worthy of inclusion. Drmies (talk) 19:23, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Kapil Muni Tiwary

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

IMO, no proof that he meets Wikipedia:Notability (academics) Redtigerxyz ^Talk 12:17, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. —Redtigerxyz ^Talk 12:17, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think it would be highly unfair to even include this article for deletion. It would be a great disservice to the very cause for which Wikipedia stands. I have read the Wikipedia:Notability (academics) criteria and I strongly feel that he meets not just one, which is the minimum required, but at least three or four--- no 1, 4, 5, and 6. Dr K M Tiwary retired as the Professor and head of the department of English of Patna University in early nineties. After that he has been working as the professor in various universities in Yemen till date, some reference for which has been given in the article. He also had worked as a professor in Some university in Iraq in the early part of his career, though this is not mentioned in the article. The very fact he has worked as a professor not just in a reputed university in India but has still been working (he must be nearing 80 now) in a university in Taiz in Yemen, that some of his articles published in international journals and his books are being quoted by the linguists the world over (the reference for which are available in the article) should be enough to close this discussion. User talk:Arunbandana 16:02, 12 November 2011 (UTC) 16:15, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I'm not seeing any significant in-depth independent coverage. Stuartyeates (talk) 20:55, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think his contribution in the form of articles published in the national and international journals, books, editing etc. as given in the article Kapil Muni Tiwary are enough to prove that coverage are independent, in-depth and and significant. May I also draw the attention of the editors to spare their time to see the Talk:Kapil Muni Tiwary of the article how This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale. by WikiProject Biography, on 12 November 2011 itself? It was already rated as This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale. by WikiProject India long back. I only wonder why this discussion for deletion should arise now when the article has started rising the ladder of rating through the various projects and teams. User talk:Arunbandana 05:30, 13 November 2011 (UTC) 14:58, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Prof K M Tiwary was held in esteem as a professor of Literature and Linguistincs as much in Patna University from where he retired in the early nineties as he he is recognised for his erudition in Taiz University today.[20]— Preceding unsigned comment added by Arunbandana (talk • contribs) 16:08, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:14, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP: Article satisfies WP:N. KM Tiwary is recognized as a notable linguist of India as per this book cited in the wiki entry. The article also satisfies WP:RS with reports from Yemen Times and his peer-reviewed articles. However, author needs to avoid Original Research, needs to wikify the article and needs to make the article more encyclopedic.

Veryhuman (talk) 06:21, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP On the basis of the points raised above in support of keeping the article and the improvements made in the article by adding the contents and the references I am sure the article will be retained. Moreover may I request the editors to help improve the entries made in the reference as per the wiki standards. Arunbandana (talk • contribs) 14:00, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Criteria 1 - Discourse-Centered Approach to Language and Culture by J Sherzer American Anthropologist, 1987, 235 citations. The metadescription from a Google Scholar search says, "I draw this example from a short article by KM Tiwary dealing with a grammatical process widespread in India and beyond, known as the echo-word construction (Tiwary 1968). The language Tiwary describes is Bhojpuri, spoken in northern India." Saw a few other works like this but with less than 20 citations. This one so far has the highest number of citations from an independent reliable source. For instance, Social structure and peer terminology in a black adolescent gang by T Labov, Language in Society 1982, Cambridge University Press with 17 citations. The Google Scholar metadescription goes like this, "Diagrams I made of the Jets and other street clubs have already been used in linguistic studies of urban black English (see W. Labov, Cohen, Robins ... where the initial element of the tag is a proper name, such as in "Bell and 'em." Tiwary (1968) described a tag with a somewhat ..." There are more like this, of course.

Criteria 8 - This one is from Cambridge University Press welcoming a new journal from India. Pmresource (talk) 17:25, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. –MuZemike 01:08, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Cloud computing comparison

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

I suspect that comparison tables such as this are probably not encyclopaedic material, even if all the tables were completed. Pesky (talk …stalk!) 10:36, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:14, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Per availability of sources, and sources I have added to the article. Northamerica1000^(talk) 19:34, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Article created less than 30 days ago. A good start. It deserves a chance to develop. --Kvng (talk) 11:56, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep we will be linking this with Cloud_computing --Ourhistory153 (talk) 21:59, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Keep A useful list to related Wikipedia articles showing what each service has, showing the difference in nice easy to understand way. Dream Focus 15:25, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Where else would we put such a clear comparison? I was frustrated to not see the full details of the comparisons. Wikipedia should have that article completed. -- Denis.arnaud (talk) 22:51, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Neutrality^talk 01:59, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Goodbells.com

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

COI article, non-notable. -Vaar sivius ("You've made a glorious contribution to science.") 10:23, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. While a conflict of interest is not applicable to the deletion policy, I am unable to establish notability through significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Of the six citations offered, three fail independence, two do not mention the subject or support the content cited, and the last one is an advertisement masked as an interview. Best regards, Cind.amuse (Cindy) 10:39, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:12, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:12, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:12, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Non-notable Indian e-commerence compamy. --Madison-chan (talk) 23:19, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Non notable. veiled advertisement. Most of the ref / citation given are of self-linked websites (which is not allowed as per wiki guidelines)Jethwarp (talk) 03:43, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. Stuartyeates (talk) 05:35, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete - WP:ARTSPAM Veryhuman (talk) 06:03, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete - WP:ARTSPAM --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 10:25, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. –MuZemike 01:06, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Kevin Break

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

Subject does not approach WP:BASIC and WP:ARTIST standards. He's mostly self-published. JFHJr (㊟) 08:21, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:11, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:11, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment and question the fact that a photographer is mostly self-published is by the way. (Kiyoshi Suzuki was almost exclusively self-published yet nobody knowledgable would dispute his importance.) The question is: Have the books (published conventionally, by himself, or somewhere in between) been noted anywhere? It's not (directly) about any book of his, but the article in the East LA website has some substance. -- Hoary (talk) 10:56, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – I wasn't absolutely knocking SPS, but we can't base a BLP on it. His self-publications were most of what was turning up as far as any publication about the subject. As far as reliable sources go, self-publications certainly are no more reliable because he's an artist. Someone else should have said something about Break or commented on Break's own SPS. JFHJr (㊟) 17:46, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I hadn't been thinking of self-published sourcing. Of course you're right: sources must be disinterested. But as for self-published books (not used for sourcing), he says he has three books out at blurb.com. The last time I looked, [redlinked] Rafał Milach had two books out at blurb.com and only the promise of a third book from an apparently conventional publisher (Kehrer); but actually Kehrer, like most respectable photobook publishers, wants money from the photographer, and Milach merits a WP article on the strength of the commentary on his first blurb.com book (Black Sea of Concrete) alone. ¶ On the respective merits of Break versus Milach, I'm not sure that I have a comment but am sure that this wouldn't be the right place to utter it. On their relative degree of "notability" (as the word is used within WP), I think I can say that Milach is some way ahead. -- Hoary (talk) 22:43, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Lacks multiple WP:RS to satisfy WP:GNG. Happy Editing! — 72.75.52.11 (talk · contribs) _{17:38, 13 November 2011 (UTC)}[reply]
Delete. One of his photographs of a very wet bridge appeared within a bbc.co.uk page titled "California storms: Your stories"; the way the WP article pumps this up is laughable or rather sad, depending on who you are and what mood you're in. -- Hoary (talk) 22:43, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - appears to be non-notable, lack of substantial coverage in reliable sources, and per Hoary just above. CharlieEchoTango (talk) 01:50, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete serious issues with independence of sources. Stuartyeates (talk) 05:36, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No real notability. Vincelord (talk) 16:23, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Nomination was withdrawn DGG ( talk ) 05:50, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hillcrest Labs

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

Non-notable company. Tinton5 (talk) 07:27, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hillcrest Labs invented a new technology that is changing the way people use television. According to Wikipedia's policy on notability, "A company, corporation, organization, school, team, religion, group, product, or service is notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in secondary sources." Hillcrest Labs has received significant coverage for its technology in The New York Times, The Washington Post, The Wall Street Journal, and many other influential publications, as cited in the article. The company has also won multiple awards for its technology. There is no evidence to support the claim of non-notability.Accurastic (talk) 13:44, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:10, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: IMHO, a very sloppy nomination. The first two references cited are substantial articles, about the subject, from the Washington Post and the Wall Street Journal respectively; that's all that's needed to hit the GNG, and no one would need to look over the substantial article about the subject from PC Magazine, for instance. Did the nom even attempt to look at the sources present in the article at the time he filed the AfD? The article is certainly written in a promotional fashion and could definitely stand to be rewritten in an encyclopedic style, but that's a content problem more properly handled on the article's talk page. A WP:BEFORE issue if ever I saw one. Ravenswing 06:37, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – Topic is passing WP:GNG per [21], [22], [23], and many more references already in the article. Northamerica1000^(talk) 19:44, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Someone has looked through the hundreds of Google news archive results and found some reliable sources that give it significant coverage. Dream Focus 01:28, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Many reliable sources are now included in the inline citations. --DThomsen8 (talk) 02:39, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable article. Why was this nominated? Gioto (talk) 04:41, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Change vote to keep. Article is well sourced now and notability is fully established. Withdraw this nomination, per WP:Snow. Tinton5 (talk) 08:15, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:11, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:12, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Very notable company that made an innovative product, many reliable, indenpendent sources. --Madison-chan (talk) 00:02, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep notability established it appears, sources are ample. JORGENEV 07:01, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. –MuZemike 01:05, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Lauren LeMay

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

No particular claim to notability; in fact, she appeared in a non-notable film specifically about non-notable actors. The subject doesn't approach WP:BASIC requirements, let alone WP:NACTOR qualities. JFHJr (㊟) 06:59, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Reconsidered this. Article is not sourced at all and agree with the above reasoning. Tinton5 (talk) 07:15, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Agree with nom about lack of notability per WP:NACTOR. A search in news brought up no sources, and a general web search brought up personal websites and networking sites for the subject. No independent sources to support the notability of the subject. I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 07:58, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete per above and nom. -Vaar sivius ("You've made a glorious contribution to science.") 11:38, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per rationale and lack of sources. —WP:PENGUIN · ^{[ TALK ]} 18:29, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:09, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Comment: An actress who, due to where and when she was born, is known under various spellings and names. Let's see what can be found about this woman who was born in a communist country during the communist regime. Will not state that "nothing" is available yet. Time to dig. I'll be back. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 08:58, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – I've added "Ana Mathes." I'm not sure if she uses this name any more than the others, but she seems to have recently edited this article and its talk page under that handle. JFHJr (㊟) 18:11, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Tough to hide a username. I will presume it a newcomer's angst and error in not understanding the seriousness of WP:COI concerns. Perhaps she should pay close attention to WP:NAU. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 20:48, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NotJustYet. How could anyone miss mentioning the nice article/interview of her in Back Stage[24] which was offered in the article as an EL? It's a source. Under her birth name of "Ana Talos", she seems to be all over various non-reliable sites.[25] This is the same for her under "Ana Talos Mathes".[26] Under "Lauryn LeMay", the same thing.[27] Under "Lauren LeMay", same thing.[28] Under "Lauren LaMay", I found the Back Stage article and then more non-RS.[29] Did my due diligence. Cannot find what is not there. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 09:28, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Lacks multiple WP:RS to satisfy WP:GNG. Happy Editing! — 72.75.52.11 (talk · contribs) _{17:37, 13 November 2011 (UTC)}[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. –MuZemike 01:04, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

BAD Salsa Group

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

Fail WP:GNG: Significant coverage" means that sources address the subject directly in detail. Most web searches are related to India's Got Talent 3 officially or blogs/FB pages et al discussing them. Redtigerxyz ^Talk 06:46, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. —Redtigerxyz ^Talk 06:47, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:08, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:09, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Lacks the significant coverage required to pass WP:GNG. Chris (talk) 22:40, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as per above. Jethwarp (talk) 13:25, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. Stuartyeates (talk) 05:40, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. –MuZemike 01:00, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Emily Marilyn

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

Fails WP:PORNSTAR per its own claims and is entirely unsourced. I'd normally clean up BLP vios as I go, in case it's kept, but the whole article would be gone. JFHJr (㊟) 06:28, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Non-notable actress, with no sources to justify any notability. IMDB would not count as a source, as well as the other links provided. Tinton5 (talk) 07:09, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:07, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:08, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete - appears to be non-notable, lack of substantial coverage in reliable sources. CharlieEchoTango (talk) 01:49, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Non-notable fetish model, all Ghits are trivial. --Madison-chan (talk) 15:25, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: - "Emily Marilyn" on google image search with safe search turned off shows 215,000 hits, the first couple couple of pages all seem to be the same person. That seems like a lot. Stuartyeates (talk) 05:47, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I actually got a higher number by a few thousand using the same search method. Think the content of those photos is something on which to base notability? Plus, I'm pretty sure image hits don't figure into notability per wikipedia anyway. These images certainly don't count as in-depth coverage even if you can literally see all there is to the subject. Part of the reason is that they're published by WP:SPS and other encyclopedically unreliable sources. The other part is that they just don't give us anything of note or substance to say. Practically, I imagine it would be hard to muster prose about the number and content, based on google searches of the interwebs at some particular time. Maybe someday she'll pass WP:PORNSTAR and this can be undeleted at the request of someone who isn't closely associated with her. JFHJr (㊟) 08:27, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Lacks multiple WP:RS to satisfy WP:GNG. Happy Editing! — 72.75.56.190 (talk · contribs) _{11:13, 18 November 2011 (UTC)}[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. –MuZemike 00:59, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Kristie VerMulm

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

Besides failing GNG, the only source for the information appears to be her bio on the KTIV website. Outside that, most of the information isn't really noteworthy. Your typical reporter at a mid-market station, not notable. Neutralhomer • Talk • 05:56, 12 November 2011 (UTC) 05:56, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nominator. She's appropriately covered at KTIV. JFHJr (㊟) 08:28, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Nothing that could even potentially save this article. This has been around since 2006? HangingCurve^{Swing for the fence} 20:02, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:04, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:04, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or redirect to TV station. Stuartyeates (talk) 05:49, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. –MuZemike 00:55, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jeff Shaver

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

He played for one game, and pitched one inning in that one game, there are no references, and he hardly seems notable. Pilif 12p 05:52, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and improve, unless article is a hoax. He meets WP:MLB/N since he played in (just) one major league game. Was he injured? Was his performance a disaster? Did he melt down? Inquiring minds want to know why his career in the bigs was so, so brief. More seriously, consensus says that this encyclopedia ought to have an article about every major league baseball player, without exception. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:49, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Reluctant keep. It's a ridiculous guideline, but it states that one game in the majors is enough to establish notability. I don't agree with it, but that's what we're stuck with. Clarityfiend (talk) 06:54, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
~~HRRRRRGH Keep~~ Delete per IAR. I really, really want to invoke WP:IAR and just delete this ~~but I agree with Cullen's sentiments, not to mention the very clear wording of WP:MLB/N. This is an exceptional case.~~ and so I will. I have changed my mind based on 1) A good-faith and unsuccessful effort to search for any possible explanation for Shaver's leave from the Oakland A's (The only meaningful content outside of his Oakland stats that I could find was this info/brief comments on his minor league stats) and 2) JFHJr's comments below. Clarityfiend and JFH have both acknowledged that notability guidelines should not act as absolutes, and I believe this is just one of those cases. I don't think the guideline is doing Wikipedia any particular favors for this particular article. I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 08:33, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – You'd think in a real encyclopedia, this would garner a footnote. Here, he'll be a stub until he ever does anything else. While I'm inclined to agree with the emerging consensus, might it be helpful to interpret notability guidelines as permissive, but not compulsory? That, and as Jethro points out, there's WP:IAR in case the rules don't serve wikipedia well. JFHJr (㊟) 08:54, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm not sure I understand why his departure from the A's major league roster should require an explanation. MLB rosters are quite fluid, and players are promoted from and demoted to the minor leagues every day for a multitude of reasons, not all of which are related to performance. Can you clarify? -Dewelar (talk) 04:47, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hm, there might have been a presumption from Cullen that news sources exist explaining why there was a quick leave from the roster, and might support the notability of the individual. I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 20:46, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – This is a borderline case, but only because of a guideline. The actual notability of this subject isn't met even though some guidelines are met. He doesn't seem likely to gain significantly in notability in the future (but if he did, the article could be undeleted). If there's really a consensus to the contrary, I'd live with that, obviously. Sometimes bright lines are helpful, and here they're all subject to change. JFHJr (㊟) 09:39, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Passes WP:BASE/N. Played one game in the Major Leagues. Adam Penale (talk) 13:45, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep- the bright line of the notability threshold was crossed. Whether by an inch or a mile, it doesn't matter. There's enough referenced material in the article to verify that he meets the notability threshold. Umbralcorax (talk) 16:01, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. Adam Penale (talk) 16:54, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per WP:BASE/N. There's a reason MLB players have a presumption of notability, in that they will have had enough of a career between majors, minors, and amateur play to accumulate enough coverage to pass WP:GNG. If Shaver had never played baseball at any other level (e.g., someone like Eddie Gaedel, who is notable for reasons beyond simply the fact that he played one game), I could see a justification for invoking WP:IAR, but it's just not so. -Dewelar (talk) 18:57, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep because of his MLB experience. Even one appearance qualifies you for the Baseball Encyclopedia, which is our minimum standard. Deleting this article via IAR would set a bad precedent. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:55, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This player clearly satisfies WP:BASE/N. This will not change. The article is notable, and that is the end of it. WP:IAR and WP:IDONTLIKEIT votes should be discounted. Agent Vodello^{OK, Let's Party, Darling!} 23:31, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, it shouldn't be discounted. There is obvious consensus here that is clearly going to win out, but I made a perfectly reasonable argument. Equating my argument as a WP:IDONTLIKEIT is a mischaracterization. WP:IAR is a reasonable, policy-based argument. Strictly follow this notability guideline for baseball players in this case seems senseless to me and doesn't improve Wikipedia. I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 07:51, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:WIARM, it's not about whether following the rule isn't improving Wikipedia, it's about whether ignoring the rule would improve Wikipedia -- a subtle but crucial distinction. I don't see how your argument (or anyone else's) above addresses this. -Dewelar (talk) 09:06, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And also per WP:WIARM, following the spirit of the rules trumps the letter of rule. Multiple authors, even one support to keep the article, have expressed reluctance, because this individual doesn't seems to fit the spirit of the rule of notability for baseball players. And last time I checked, following rules that don't improve Wikipedia (i.e. it adds nothing valuable, or hurts the project) is exactly why WP:IAR was made, and it is why I am using it and my observations in this deletion discussion to support my reasoning. I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 09:26, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Right. However, in order to invoke WP:IAR, you have to show why following the rule hurts the project in this particular instance, which you have thus far failed to do. You've just stated that it does. That's why others are claiming that it appears to simply be a WP:IDONTLIKEIT-based argument. Neither you nor JFHJr have made any statements regarding why the presumption of notability for MLB players doesn't apply here. Indeed, the article has been expanded with additional sourcing since its nomination. If anything, this AfD has shown why the rule should be followed, as it shows that even someone who only barely meets WP:BASE/N is likely to pass WP:GNG with little difficulty. -Dewelar (talk) 16:45, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Because this baseball player isn't notable, and the guideline is being poorly applied. The source additions to the profile are just more stats, a Fredonia State Baseball website which is not independent of the subject, and a high school website with questionable reliability (e.g. saying that Shaver "played" for the Oakland A's for six years is extremely misleading). Some of the expansions deal with his minor league career. WP:IAR requires judgment calls, and I have made one-- Shaver's accomplishments wouldn't make it into a normal encyclopedia and it shouldn't make it into Wikipedia, either. You can call it WP:IDONTLIKEIT all you want, but that completely misrepresents my arguments. I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 20:46, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The reason WP:BASE/N exists in the first place as a supplement to WP:GNG is that much of the coverage that would establish a player's notability is not readily accessible -- The Sporting News, for example, is available only through subscription, and not all newspapers have extensive online archives. Since notability does not degrade over time, a baseball player who played one game in the majors in 1988 is, via WP:BASE/N, presumed to be just as notable as one who did so in the age of easy digital access. It's a legitimate -- and, I would argue, necessary -- assumption to make.

You are correct that the school web sites are not necessarily reliable on the topic of his professional career, but the information for which they are used as a source is his performance as an amateur, for which I would call them reliable secondary sources.

Finally, if your standard is whether something would make it into a "normal encyclopedia" (by which I presume you mean something like the Encyclopedia Britannica and not a general baseball encyclopedia, as I have several examples of the latter on my bookshelf, all of which contain an entry for Shaver), then perhaps 95% (possibly more) of all Wikipedia articles should be deleted. Is that the position you're taking? -Dewelar (talk) 21:28, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, it's not my position. Notability is not the only reason why there are content differences between Wikipedia and traditional encyclopedias. One other reason is because traditional encyclopedias are written by experts in the field willing to do so and a small editorial staff. Obviously, there are issues of space in print editions, but even online edition have a great deal of editorial oversight that slows the process of adding new content. Anyway, I'm done with this, and I've bludgeoned this issue enough. My opinion is not gaining consensus, and there are more important things to do. I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 23:53, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:03, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:BASE/N. No good reason to WP:IAR on this. Rlendog (talk) 04:24, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Except I've provided one and you've provided no counterargument except to say that guidelines are hard-and-fast rules (which they are not). I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 07:51, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that guidelines are not hard and fast rules but I disagree that the argument you provided for not following the guideline in this case is a good one. Just because information on why his A's career abruptly ended is not readily available is not a reason to ignore the guideline. The same would apply to most 1 game or even a few game major leaguers. In all likelihood, no explanation for his short stay was particularly necessary because someone better became available to the team (either a player got healthy, they were able to trade for someone or pick up someone off waivers, or just decided to go with a different minor league call up). Rlendog (talk) 02:31, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep He has the lowest ERA in the history of Major League Baseball and is a member of the Fredonia State Athletic Hall of Fame! Hail, Hail Fredonia. Kinston eagle (talk) 15:58, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I can't believe the amount of time and effort people waste on these dumb arguments and in the constant search for Wiki policy loopholes and justifications. How would Wikipedia be better by having pages for approx. 14,990 MLB players and then not having pages for the remaining 10? Quick answer: It wouldn't. Also, it makes no sense to even discuss deleting an actual MLB player from Wiki at the same time that Wiki's baseball guidelines grant notability to players in the Mexican League, Korea, etc. — NY-13021 (talk) 09:52, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Article could use maybe a couple more sources, but notability is established in its current state. Tinton5 (talk) 20:18, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. All MLB players are prima facie notable. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 21:32, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep If you appear in a professional game, you are notable enough to have an article. Simple as that.--Yankees10 18:52, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep Played one game. Not much, but it's enough.--Giants27(T|C) 20:13, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Snow keep. WP:BASE/N. Enough said. Alex (talk) 21:46, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. –MuZemike 00:54, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

EJ DiMera and Nicole Walker

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

The entire article is a plot summary of events in the TV series by the couple. The only claim to notability is, The coupling has gained a strong following on many forums and message boards, across the internet with a reference to a fan site. WP:PLOT. Vanadus (talk | contribs) 05:00, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I would have to disagree, yes the article is rough around the edges. However I do believe that once all of the right sources and refrences have been gathered it would the criteria for as an article. And I also believe that the claim for them as a couple or super can be made in the fact that the coupling does have a large fanbase of supporters. Know I now many couplings have fanbases but I do believe that theirs is notable especially considering that they have been togethered 3 times in the past three years. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sashak90 (talk • contribs) 06:26, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:02, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:02, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - They don't seem to be a supercouple to me, the only reliable source I could find was on The Examiner which is inexplicably on the Spam Blacklist, and this article is mostly a plot summary which violates WP:PLOT. --Madison-chan (talk) 22:28, 14 November 2011 (UTC)Madison-chan[reply]

Delete as non-notable combination. Stuartyeates (talk) 05:50, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. –MuZemike 00:53, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Francis Tapon

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

No real claim to notability per WP:ATHLETE; his writing career is likewise non-notable. JFHJr (㊟) 04:01, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per reasoning above. Lead sentence implies he has a limited writing career, which is a given that he is not widely known, in addition to the rest of his career. Tinton5 (talk) 07:13, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:01, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:01, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as above. Stuartyeates (talk) 05:51, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. –MuZemike 00:51, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dave Stanton

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

A biographical article about a British player of American Football in the UK. The one reference is thin, so the article is not fully verifiable and notability is not full established. Needs further sources to show the facts here are correct, that the subject meets notability and to meet Wikipedia's standards on biographies of living people. Prod was contested without comment, so bringing here for discussion. Sparthorse (talk) 03:41, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:59, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete need a little more sources than what is given, which seems to violate WP:COI. I'd change my position if better sources pop up.--Paul McDonald (talk) 15:39, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I'm with Paul on this one - it seems like there should be better sourcing, but I can't find it. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 15:36, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. –MuZemike 00:51, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Jesus Wall

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

Fails to meet WP:GNG. Article does not have any third party sources. Tinton5 (talk) 02:58, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – Also fails as to significant coverage. JFHJr (㊟) 05:36, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:58, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:58, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Completely non-notable photo studio; nothing at all found at Google News. I considered a redirect to The Brewery Art Colony, but decided against it because the name is not unique; for example, there is a 300 foot climbing wall at Stoney Point in Chatsworth called the Jesus Wall. --MelanieN (talk) 01:30, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete with the reasoning others have already provided. -- Hoary (talk) 10:58, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no evidence of notability. Stuartyeates (talk) 05:39, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Lacks multiple WP:RS to satisfy WP:GNG. Happy Editing! — 72.75.56.190 (talk · contribs) _{14:12, 17 November 2011 (UTC)}[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Drmies (talk) 19:31, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Stewart (politician)

AfDs for this article:

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

Non-notable politician. Appears to have some achievements; however, individual lacks GHits and GNEWS to support WP:NOTABILITY or WP:POLITICIAN. reddogsix (talk) 02:36, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:POLITICIAN as an unelected candidate. He does have other accomplishments, but article asserts notability as a political candidate. We should not host campaign literature masquerading as a biography. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:21, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per Cullen and per nominator. No significant coverage, especially on the basis of his political career. JFHJr (㊟) 05:15, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable politician with limited Google hits, and other forms of coverage. Tinton5 (talk) 07:19, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:17, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:17, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Utah-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:17, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:18, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete - as a politican, he's not notable by any stretch; as an author, he's right on the margin, based on a book that got to # 24 on the New York Times bestseller list. Bearian (talk) 21:52, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Bearian. I wrote the article, and agree that this fails WP:POLITICIAN - but is on the margin as an author. I recommend removing notes regarding political candidacy. Subject is not notable - by any stretch - as a politician. Ctmadsen (talk) 02:27, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Bearian's links to a Wikipedia article. This one is from the New York Times. Drop the word '(politician)' from the title then will probably vote Keep after familiarization with Wikipedia guidelines on Authors; provided, however, that everything is in order. Pmresource (talk) 16:31, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Neutrality^talk 02:01, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of Popular Flipnote Creators

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

This is unencyclopedic content. It's a list of individuals with limited notability of the concept itself. The phenomenon can be mentioned in the Flipnote Studio article but there's no reason to have a list of the individual creators on wikipedia. Shadowjams (talk) 02:31, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I could change it a bit to make List of Popular Flipnote Creators more encyclopedic. I am knowledgeable in the subject. I even participate in Flipnote Hatena. But, how do you make a article encyclopedic? Greenble (talk) 03:06, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This is, to be honest, not very encyclopedic. We don't have a list of top players on the Sony game networks or any other various game/entertainment area, so this isn't needed or encyclopedic, especially since this is a list that would probably change often as new people slide into the top ranks of popularity. Flipnote Hatena is notable (not arguing that), but that notability doesn't extend to the users of that application. (Not to mention that this would be open to users potentially adding themselves or their personal favorite users onto the list claiming that they're popular in their particular FH niche.) Please see WP:NOT for what doesn't belong on Wikipedia. Tokyogirl79 (talk) 05:15, 12 November 2011 (UTC)tokyogirl79[reply]

Delete - not notable, not encyclopedic. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:26, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - unremarkable list of non-notable individuals. MikeWazowski (talk) 18:19, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:56, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This doesn't meet the standard for what is notable. This seems too much like a list of top scorers on a video or computer game. Such lists are transitory and doesn't meet the criteria for notability under ordinary circumstances. If a flipbook creator or a flipbook animation had some sort of notability that extended beyond Hatena (ie, was featured in a TV show or documentary, got written up in a magazine or newspaper, or had commercial or critical success as an artist that was noted outside of Flipbook Hatena) then that would be notable and worthy of inclusion on the Flipbook Studio page itself.OckRaz ^talk 10:21, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Delete per OckRaz, and also because I couldn't find any reliable sources about these people outside of the Flipnote community. --Madison-chan (talk) 22:51, 14 November 2011 (UTC)Madison-chan[reply]

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

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

The result was withdrawn (non-admin closure) CharlieEchoTango (talk) 05:34, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

180 Documentary

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

Non-notable film lacking GHits and GNEWS of substance. Fails WP:NOTFILM. References/links are all blogs. reddogsix (talk) 01:59, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - As the nominator I have watched the transition the article has made from biased discussion lacking references to one that meets Wikipedia criteria for inclusion. I now believe the article should be included and urge the closing Admin to close the AfD with a Keep resolution. I commend MichaelQSchmidt work on the article and wish to thank him for his hard work. MichaelQSchmidt is representative of a core of dedicated volunteers that helps keep Wikipedia alive and at a high level of quality. MichaelQSchmidt my hat is off to you. reddogsix (talk) 04:53, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ditto. Per your withdrawal I am going to do a non-admin closure now, once I can find the help page again. CharlieEchoTango (talk) 05:32, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:51, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete per nominator. All my researches lead to some promotional articles in extremist/radical Christian blogs/sites, that are not reliable and definitely do not have a neutral point of view. IMDB and major film websites simply ignore the existence of this "film". Meets WP:Self-promotion and indiscriminate publicity, instead fails WP:N, WP:GNG and all the criteria of WP:MOVIE. --Cavarrone (talk) 00:32, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
~~No cause for speedy here, but delete as failing the notability guidelines. CharlieEchoTango (talk) 04:54, 13 November 2011 (UTC)~~[reply]
Striking my previous !vote and changing to keep in light of the commendable work done by Michael Q. Schmidt. I am satisfied that WP:GNG is met in this case. Best regards, CharlieEchoTango (talk) 05:30, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and then Redirect to Ray Comfort#Film. While seen as controversial, the film is verifiable and not only in Christian media and websites. I agree that sources are problematic in the current version, and the film lacks notability for a separate article. But it is not unsourcable... and by being at least verifiable,[30] we can direct readers to the one place where it is already mentioned in context to the filmmaker himself. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 04:58, 13 November 2011 (UTC) (struck. See below)[reply]
Keep Needs improvement, certainly, but more sources appear to be coming; see [31] [32] [33] [34] [35]. NYyankees51 (talk) 20:11, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Tell ya what... I'll go over and see if I can neutralize the article, correct its format and style, and add a section on critical response. If the thing is getting atention, even negative attention, we may have a sutable meeting of WP:NF, despite the topic. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 21:10, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and continue improvements, as it does need more. I've changed my mind after beginning some sandblasting and cleanup to begin neutralizing and sourcing the article.[36] More to do, yes... but such is an addressable issue, specially as not all available sources are blogs, not all sources promote the film, and many of the available sources are reliable.[37] Editors should simply not use those that are not. As the film is released, and is receiving commentary and review in enough suitable secondary sources, we do have a meeting of WP:NF and WP:GNG. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 22:49, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. –MuZemike 00:48, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sicodelico

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

Fails WP:BIO. Won 1 championship of doubtful significance. hasn't been the subject of multiple published secondary sources.

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. Jarkeld (talk) 00:53, 12 November 2011 (UTC) Jarkeld (talk) 00:53, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Article isn't any better than when I PRODded it. Has only two sources, one of which is inaccessible to the general public, and the other which isn't independent of the subject Purpleback pack 89≈≈≈≈ 01:23, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:55, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete due to lack of WP:RS covering the topic. Stuartyeates (talk) 05:56, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

This page has been blanked as a courtesy.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Wifione ^Message 13:32, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Empire Art Space

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

No evidence of or sources for notability. Kelly ^hi! 13:54, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:55, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:55, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:55, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 00:06, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete — Doesn't assert anything, and doesn't have enough context to establish a claim to notability. C_(u)w_(t)C_(c) 01:41, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as completely lacking WP:RS. Stuartyeates (talk) 06:16, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Kill 'Em All#"Hit the Lights". Any content worth merging can be done from the page history. (non-admin closure) →Σ τ c. 00:31, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hit the Lights (song)

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

This isn't a notable song. It fails WP:NSONGS due to not charting. It wasn't even released as a single. [38] 11coolguy12 (talk) 09:48, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:50, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 00:05, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to Kill 'Em All#"Hit the Lights". Agree with nominator's rationale, but some of the information not on the main album page can be merged from this article. I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 06:55, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/Redirect — As per above comment, info could be merged, put separate article unnecessary. C_(u)w_(t)C_(c) 01:39, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Kill 'Em All#"Hit the Lights" per I Jethrobot's rationale, an indipendent article is not necessary as it is unnecessary delete the whole content of the article.--Cavarrone (talk) 11:19, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Kill 'Em All#"Hit the Lights". Per I Jethrobot. -happy 5214 22:56, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I've noticed that the article Hit the Lights (about the band), already reflects the likely results of this AfD. -happy 5214 23:07, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Kill 'Em All#"Hit the Lights" as completely unsourced. Stuartyeates (talk) 06:18, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Karnataka State Film Award for Best Film. (non-admin closure) →Σ τ c. 00:30, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Karnataka State Film Award for Best Film Second

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

Overcategorization of film awards. Individual page for first, second, third place seems excessive (See: WP:OC). Consider merging information into a single, sortable table and adding extra encyclopedia material. Also see, WP:NOTDIR, WP:WHIM. Veryhuman (talk) 00:05, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:20, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:20, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:20, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 00:01, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I concur with Veryhuman. Pages for individual awards, sure. For runners-up, no. DS (talk) 13:28, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect with Karnataka State Film Award for Best Film First and Karnataka State Film Award for Best Film Third to a single consolidated article Karnataka State Film Award for Best Film. --Lambiam 22:10, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – Done: See Karnataka State Film Award for Best Film, which I created. Northamerica1000^(talk) 15:33, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect – Per merge done listed above. Northamerica1000^(talk) 17:42, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as above. Stuartyeates (talk) 06:23, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Wifione ^Message 13:29, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Twinkle (Tokyo Heroes)

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

I think there are a lot of these for the same group....single that never charted. Fails wp:n for music. Dennis Brown (talk) 20:34, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:50, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steven Zhang ^{The clock is ticking....} 00:17, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 00:00, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete searching on Oricon for rankings brings up nothing. Doesn't meet WP:NALBUMS. I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 05:38, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as completely unsourced. Stuartyeates (talk) 06:23, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

^ [39]

[1] [39]

[1]