Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion/Log/2011 August 24

< Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion‎ | Log

< 23 August	25 August >

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The result was Keep - nomination withdrawn (non-admin closure). Whpq (talk) 20:45, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Jennifer Cohen

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

Doesn't establish notability Nathan2055 23:04, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

- Notability established through association with global brands (weight watchers), television appearances on nationally syndicated talk shows (today show) and television shows (shedding for the wedding). Added citations for appearances on today show, shedding for the wedding show, and weight watchers, cut down on quotes and non-reference material. I am the creator of the page and major contributor. Request to not have page deleted with these citation additions - please keep. Fliderman11 (talk) 14:32, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 02:33, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 02:33, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Withdraw: Notability established with third-party sources. --Nathan2055 16:46, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 05:19, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Fraser Franks

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

Fails WP:NFOOTY as has yet to play at a fully-professional level of football. Also fails WP:GNG due to a lack of any significant media coverage. --Jimbo 21:46, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. --Jimbo 21:49, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
Delete. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Argyle 4 Life 22:19, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 23:11, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
Delete – No indication that this player meets any of the relevant notability criteria. The article can always be recreated if/when he plays in a pro match. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 01:04, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 02:25, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Delete - There is no indication he has ever actually played for Wimbledon, nor is there significant coverage. He therefore fails both WP:NSPORT and WP:GNG. Sir Sputnik (talk) 14:48, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Alpha Quadrant 00:11, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Adeyemi College of Education

AfDs for this article:

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

No proper information Mohamed Aden Ighe (talk) 21:15, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 02:13, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 02:13, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Keep - It was a mess of a page that didn't even qualify as an article. I just did some clean-up and added content based on this source. I would've waited more than 3 minutes to AfD an article of a post-secondary institution. . Post-secondary institutions are considered notable by the community. I would consider a merge to Obafemi Awolowo University for which this college is a part of. --Oakshade (talk) 05:41, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
Keep and mentor. It is nice to see efforts to get valid content into Knowledge (XXG) from places where Internet access can be tough to get. The page can surely use some work, so this is a good chance to contact the (probably Nigerian, probably newbie) person who created the page, and coach them through the process. Bella the Ball (talk) 14:55, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

The result was Speedy delete a7, no assertion of notability. We do list porn stars, but they have to meet the notability standards of WP:PORNBIO. NawlinWiki (talk) 21:37, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Sea J Raw

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

Not a proper site and unacceptable. This site refers to adult content, that may not be acceptable. Mohamed Aden Ighe (talk) 21:02, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) BusterD (talk) 00:12, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Aleppo Artillery School massacre

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

No proper references at all. Mohamed Aden Ighe (talk) 20:54, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Comment What about the ref to a Human Rights Commission of the country? Edison (talk) 21:48, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Syria-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 02:17, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 02:18, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 02:18, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Keep - the event is notable and i added sufficient sources for further development of this artןcle.Greyshark09 (talk) 16:51, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
Keep - after the adding of sources.--BabbaQ (talk) 17:32, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
Speedy keep references added.--Rafy talk 18:56, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
Keep pending adequate referencing. We should be especially wary of rewriting/blanking the history books in relation to political people and events that are currently experiencing political heated turmoil. Deterence 08:51, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
Keep. It could use with some referencing and reference format improvements, but it seems like an event that is worthy enough to have a page on Knowledge (XXG). Backtable _{concerning my deeds.} 22:49, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

The result was delete. Sandstein 05:17, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Captain Ali Children Hospital

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

No sources found to confirm notability. Mattg82 (talk) 20:53, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 21:46, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 21:46, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Delete agree with Tom.Lemmonk4 (talk) 10:07, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
Delete I could only find directory-type listings for this hospital. Too bad, because I would love to keep it, but at this point we don't have anything to support it. Maybe if someone could search in Urdu? --MelanieN (talk) 13:47, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

The result was delete. Spartaz 08:23, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Key industries

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

Written like a website not an real article. Mohamed Aden Ighe (talk) 20:40, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

I am confused as to what you mean by "written like a website, not an real article". What is it specifically? Mr. Matt Wallace, B.A. (Hist), B. Ed. (Sec. SS) (talk) 20:44, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Delete. Doesn't assert notability, doesn't provide sources, doesn't contain much more than a list of departments and doesn't contain much else to improve upon. Several Times (talk) 20:49, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Article is newer than I thought, going to try to avoid biting any newbies today. Several Times (talk) 21:03, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

I just started the article not even 20 minutes ago. I am adding content as we speak. Mr. Matt Wallace, B.A. (Hist), B. Ed. (Sec. SS) (talk) 20:52, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Oops, looks like the nominator got a bit overzealous. So you know, it is often a good idea to start new pages in your user space, like this. Then you can move the article out when it's more complete. Several Times (talk) 21:03, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. Not a newbie. Anyway, I am currently filling the page with appropriate content. It should be a real article shortly.Mr. Matt Wallace, B.A. (Hist), B. Ed. (Sec. SS) (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 21:21, 24 August 2011 (UTC).

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 21:45, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Can someone help me? This is very unlik eme but I just realized I started this article as Key industries instead of Key Industries (capital I). Anyone know how to change it? Thx, 142.166.52.157 (talk) 17:45, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

fixed. DGG ( talk ) 04:32, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Delete while the article is written in good faith, it's don't meet our policies in organizations, the content isn't really appropriate for the encyclopedia as well, as editors can confuse this article as spam, because of how it's written (list of services, phone number and such). I also can't find any reliable sources as well. Don't give up if this article ends up getting deleted. Once you get accustomed to our policies, you'll be fine. Thanks Secret 01:36, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Speedy delete per A7. Knowledge (XXG) is not the Yellow Pages. Article provides no references to third party coverage or other indication of notability as required by WP:ORG. Sandstein 05:01, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

The result was delete. Sandstein 05:07, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Layton (cocktail)

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

WP:ONEDAY. This drink was invented to honour the passing away of Jack Layton, who died two days ago (thereby inferring the drink was invented yesterday or so). PROD was disputed on the basis that there has been a lot of social media attention to this drink. While that may be true, tweets and blogs are not reliable sources to support notability. Singularity42 (talk) 20:34, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 21:45, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. —PK T(alk) 23:59, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Delete. Just delete it outright. I've come across the Facebook profile of the drink's "originator"; he's just doing it for the attention and as a joke, apparently. To have done this so soon after Jack Layton's death is in poor taste. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.0.47.24 (talk) 21:16, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Keep. Just cause some idiot is trying to get attention doesn't mean it's not a legitimate drink, I've heard of it being ordered across Canada, give it some time see if it maintains some traction.Xtopher (talk) 21:54, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Notability first, then article. Not the other way around. The article says it was invented as a memorial to Layton, which means it was invented a few days ago. WP:ONEDAY clearly applies. Singularity42 (talk) 22:01, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Expecting something to become notable is a form of WP:CRYSTALBALLing, and WP:DEADLINE applies in that an article shouldn't be created until it is ready. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ _¢ 00:02, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Speedy Delete - this is a hoax / bad joke. PK T(alk) 23:44, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
Speedy Delete per PKT. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ _¢ 00:02, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
Speedy Delete for the reasons above. Tokyogirl79 (talk) 10:31, 25 August 2011 (UTC)tokyogirl79
Delete - should probably be a speedy delete as a hoax. At best, it completely lack notability and has zero coverage in reliable sources. -- Transity 11:32, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
Delete - coverage in social media aside, I have not seen anything in a reliable source (even as a passing mention). Would reconsider if such coverage was found. Canada Hky (talk) 00:07, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
Speedy Delete - lacks any notability and has zero coverage in reliable sources - A tiny blip in Canadian social media doesn't make it notable. MikeyMoose (talk) 10:52, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
Keep - Come on, buzzkills. This is Knowledge (XXG), not some trusted academic source. Live a little, or at least delete it for a real reason - who wants to drink Jack Daniels anyway? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.59.7.83 (talk) 14:41, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
Speedy delete - Drink is not notable, simple as that. --Esanchez_{(Talk 2 me or Sign here)} 19:39, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

The result was delete. Sandstein 05:23, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Untitled Fifth mewithoutYou Album

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

No release date, no title, no confirmed tracklist. This is one for the WP:HAMMER - fails WP:NALBUMS and WP:CRYSTAL. Contested PROD. JohnCD (talk) 19:48, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. —JohnCD (talk) 19:50, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Delete because Twitpic isn't exactly a reliable third-party source. Several Times (talk) 20:53, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
Snowball delete per WP:HAMMER, do I need to say anything else? Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • 22:05, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
Delete per WP:HAMMER. No tracklisting, no release date, no information other than speculation. Doc StrangeLogbook 23:06, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

The result was delete. Sandstein 05:12, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Mike Marra

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

Non-notable college basketball player. Only Ghits are WP:ROUTINE. Jrcla2 (talk) 19:41, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 21:43, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 21:44, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Comment Most of the article was a copyvio of his Louisville profile, so I've stubbed it. Zagalejo^^^ 21:46, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
Delete WP:Run-of-the-mill player has WP:ROUTINE game coverage and interviews and fails WP:GNG. Hasnt achieved notability through WP:NSPORTS as a college player without notable accomplishments.—Bagumba (talk) 22:04, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

The result was delete. Sandstein 05:03, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Clockodo

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

Non-notable software ╟─Treasury Tag►most serene─╢ 17:58, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 18:07, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Delete per TreasuryTag. I see no significant independent coverage of this software. Egg Centric 22:16, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
Delete. Nothing in Google News or Books, so I'm pretty sure it's not notable. The article relies on primary sources and a couple of blogs that while probably independent, don't appear to qualify as WP:RS. FuFoFuEd (talk) 22:58, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

The result was redirect to Charles Hamilton (rapper). (and merge the discography) Black Kite (t) (c) 11:44, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Brooklyn Girls

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Brooklyn Girls

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

I am also nominating the following related pages, see discussion below:

With all due respect to Mr Hamilton, I wonder if we're not going a bit overboard on covering this subject, and if there's a bit of promotional editing going on here. I'm willing to concede that Charles Hamilton (rapper) is an OK article to have (notwithstanding that its heavily tagged and apparently needs some cleanup). Hamilton is notable (I guess, maybe) but seems to be only marginally notable. He has, after all, never released an actual album on any label (to my knowledge), for instance. Given that, do we really need a number of articles on his various works sufficient to make up a category or navbox?

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 14:54, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. —Herostratus (talk) 15:11, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Redirect

Brooklyn Girls. It's a song. It did reach the Billboard Hot 100, but at #97 (according to the article anyway -- there's no ref), and doesn't appear to have any other markers of notability (such as an article about the song or whatever). Fails WP:NSONG.
It's Charles Hamilton. It's a mixtape, or at least its listed as a mixtape at Hamilton's discography. I'm a little confused, because I thought mixtapes were compilations of existing songs, but the article gives a track listing of songs composed by Hamilton. At any rate, there's no indication that it was released as an actual album by an actual record company, and there's no indication that it meets the WP:NALBUMS criteria of "mentioned in multiple reliable sources" (or any sources at all, for that matter).

Then there are three entities listed at Hamilton's discography as "free albums" as opposed to "studio albums". I'd infer that that means they weren't released by an actual record company.

The Pink Lavalamp. No indication that it meets the WP:NALBUMS criteria of "mentioned in multiple reliable sources".
Normalcy (Charles Hamilton album). No indication that it meets the WP:NALBUMS criteria of "mentioned in multiple reliable sources".
Tafietu. No indication that it meets the WP:NALBUMS criteria of "mentioned in multiple reliable sources". The articles states that it "was slated to be Charles Hamilton's debut album" but there's no indication that it was released by an actual record company.

Arguable

Then there are two entities listed at Hamilton's discography as "studio albums". Actual studio albums step up a bit in notability, since least someone put in enough effort to rent a studio, sign a contract, and make arrangements for cover art and manufacture and distribution and so forth. However, neither of these entities have actually been released by an actual record company, as near as I can tell.

This Perfect Life. The article lede states "This Perfect Life was supposed to be the debut studio album by American rapper Charles Hamilton, but ended up being shelved by Interscope". So hmmm. Interscope is an actual entity and is even part of Universal Music Group, and Hamilton appears to have had some sort of relationship with them. So points for that. However, after a good deal of "was to be" and "was going to be" and "would have" and "planned to" the article comes to "However the album was never released because of Hamilton getting dropped from Interscope on September 19, 2009 for unknown reasons". There was a little bit of buzz about the album because Hamilton credited the respected J Dilla as producer, but it turns out that Mr Dilla would have been unavailable due to a previous long-standing engagement with the Grim Reaper. There are six refs in the article, and at least one of them (here) is a dead-tree entity, XXL (magazine).
My Heart (Charles Hamilton album). But the article lede is "My Heart is the upcoming debut studio album by Charles Hamilton", and we all know WP:CRYSTAL. It's to be on NewCo, and I don't know who NewCo is but they don't have an article here, which most labels of any notability do. The material was recorded in 2010 -- two songs were released in the spring of 2010 and one in the fall of 2010 -- but according to the article "The album has been postponed because Charles has yet to sign off on the publishing for the album". Whether there's any more recent news on the project I don't know. There's only on ref (sohh.com -- whether that a reliable source I don't know) and so there's no indication that it meets the WP:NALBUMS criteria of "mentioned in multiple reliable sources".

Merge

Charles Hamilton discography. It's arguable that Hamilton isn't notable enough to have his own discography article -- and, after all, he's never released an actual album which I think that most artists with discography articles have done. It's a pretty long article, though, and merging all of into Charles Hamilton (rapper) would make that article pretty long. Perhaps the mixtape section could be dispensed with, not sure. Herostratus (talk) 14:41, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Discussion

Redirect all, except merge Charles Hamilton discography into Charles Hamilton (rapper). Keeping the discography separate for article-length reasons would be OK too, I don't really care. The only arguable entity is This Perfect Life, based on the XXL magazine article ref. However, the WP:NALBUMS criteria is "mentioned in multiple reliable sources" and I don't see any of the other article refs as being of very high quality, so I vote to redirect that article also. Nominator's comment. Herostratus (talk) 14:41, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
redirect all. this artist seems to be mainly known for being featured on the cover of the Freshmen 09' XXL magazine and being "the cousin of famous rapper MC Lyte." i dont know the policies as well as herostratus, but his points seem valid. the main article reads like a puff piece on Hamilton. i think i proded the main article once upon a time and found out swiftly that he is notable, but this seems like overcoverage for an artist who probably hasnt released a studio album yet. -badmachine 16:39, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
Comment There is a lack of understanding here of hip hop in the 2000s and beyond, and a high likelihood of independent coverage of several, perhaps all, of these releases. Charles Hamilton was one of the most talked-about rappers for a period around 2008-2009, before his star rapidly faded due to a variety of factors. This huge batch nomination is asking too much of volunteers - would you consider withdrawing some, for instance "Brooklyn Girls" which has the Hot 100 charting entry, per WP:nsong, and This Perfect Life, which has at least the XXL sourcing, so that it is more manageable to seek sources for the articles remaining? The discography article should of course stand also, with mixtape section intact. 86.44.18.93 (talk) 20:51, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
- A variety of factors indeed. Well no, I'm not going to withdraw any of the nominations (even if I could); you're free to argue against them. I'm not nominating the article Charles Hamilton (rapper) and I concede his (marginal) notability, but not only has he never released an actual album on any actual label (even a non-notable one) but he's never had even a regional tour. Do we really need nine articles to cover his corpus? For comparison, Mikhail Lermontov also has nine articles for chrissakes, aren't we getting a bit out of proportion here? I concede that he's "mastered the art of internet self-promotion" as Fader says, and bully for him, but we don't need to be part of that.

I'll include "Brooklyn Girls" as arguable along with This Perfect Life. The other entries are no-brainer automatic deletes in my opinion. When I say "arguable" I mean that an argument can be made for them, but an extremely weak one and one that I don't agree with. WP:NSONGS does say "Songs that have been ranked on national or significant music charts... are probably notable" but also says "All articles on... songs must meet the basic criteria at the notability guidelines, with significant coverage in reliable sources" and "Most songs do not rise to notability for an independent article", and I don't think that we generally include songs just because they reached #97 on the Billboard Charts. Herostratus (talk) 04:42, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

lol, i'm afraid we do have to be part of that if he's done a good enough job of it. but perhaps he hasn't! it's too much work for me to ascertain in any case, so no vote. 86.44.18.93 (talk) 10:25, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, causa sui (talk) 17:11, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Comment If even the nominator thinks different things should be done with different articles, then it was probably a Bad Idea(tm) to start one AFD over them. causa sui (talk) 17:51, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

The result was delete. Sandstein 05:10, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Darko Aranđelović

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

Article about footballer that doesn't appear to satisfy any of our notability guidelines. Article was proposed for deletion and PROD was removed on the grounds that Aranđelović played in a qualifying round for the UEFA Champions League (a sum of two 2nd half substitute appearances). As far as I can determine, this person has played in the second level of Slovakia's league, the first level of Lithuania's league and is now playing the second level of the Republic of Srpska's league. He has never competed in a fully-pro league and several internet searches turned up no evidence of the article satisfying the GNG (only routine mentions of this person on football statistics websites). Jogurney (talk) 16:42, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Jogurney (talk) 16:46, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
Delete. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Argyle 4 Life 17:13, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
Delete - The A Lyga is not fully pro, and all his international club appearances have been in qualifying so he fails WP:NSPORT. There is insufficient coverage for this article to merit inclusion under WP:GNG. Sir Sputnik (talk) 17:59, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 18:10, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 19:28, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

The result was delete. Spartaz 08:26, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

The Palazzo (Hong Kong)

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

fails WP:N, sources are primary from the developer and estate agent listings. Unable to find independent WP:RS with no claims of notability as an internet search turned up mostly classified listings. The page was DEPRODed in 2009 by IP editor with reason being that "notability not Dubious", with no further notable info since. Michaela den (talk) 12:35, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. —Michaela den (talk) 12:35, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Merge into Fo Tan or a new Private housing estates in Sha Tin District article. olivier (talk) 17:46, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
Delete fails WP:GNG, unless there's a hidden stash of non-English references someplace. Stuartyeates (talk) 04:20, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cerejota (talk) 04:21, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Comment If this gets deleted, then it will set a precedent for most/all of Private housing estate of Hong Kong articles to be deleted. Dengero (talk) 12:04, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
Note that Caribbean Coast has been quietly deleted without discussion. olivier (talk) 13:43, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BusterD (talk) 16:41, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Comment - if those Private housing estate of Hong Kong articles are notable per WP:N as a standalone article then they will not be deleted but if they are not then they ought to be deleted.--Michaela den (talk) 09:46, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
- So merging is not an option? just erase all the content? olivier (talk) 15:32, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
  - A table summarizing them in Private housing estate seems like a good way to preserve this content. Stuartyeates (talk) 20:08, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
Delete. Fails WP:N for lack of references to third party coverage. Sandstein 05:23, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

The result was no consensus. Sandstein 05:16, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Hipster hop

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

WP:NEO, no serious use of such a term by any reliable source. Cntras (talk) 02:59, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 08:11, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

keep I did a little work on this, which perhaps will assuage some of your worries, and more could be done. there are plenty of reliable sources, and the genre is notable in my opinion. anyway, see what you think. Alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 14:08, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

As stated in the second paragraph of WP:NEO, the references need to articulate with greater detail the actual characteristics/elements of the term rather than simply applying the label to a subject. -Cntras (talk) 12:06, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

dandy. i'm not on a mission. you said there's no serious use of such a term by any reliable source. this seemed wrong to me, and i showed that it was. i have no interest in writing this article, merely in showing that, given that there are plenty of serious uses of the term by plenty of reliable sources, perhaps someone might have an interest in writing the article, and that therefore should be kept. some of these sources, esp the first, analyse the term itself, rather than just using it, as is frowned upon by wp:neo Alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 12:25, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Comment lol 86.44.18.93 (talk) 02:52, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
Keep, per Alf.laylah.wa.laylah's improvements, addressing the nom's primary concern re reliable sources. The rest can be cleaned up, deletion not warranted. -- œ 18:12, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BusterD (talk) 16:40, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

The result was delete. Sandstein 04:58, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Net legends

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

This is an entirely arbitrary list. Who is to say who is a 'net legend' and who is not? A list of every person who has become famous on the Internet would be too long to be manageable. This appears to be a list of people who were well-known in the early days of the Internet, but we already have the article Usenet celebrity for that, which provides descriptions rather than just names. For a more comprehensive list, we also have Category:Internet personalities. Compared to that article and that category, this list seems wholly redundant. Robofish (talk) 16:35, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

(I should also note that the list was originally slightly longer, but I removed those whose articles have been deleted. Robofish (talk) 16:38, 24 August 2011 (UTC))

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 17:45, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 17:45, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Delete seems very ill-defined and likely to be a magnet for random self-publishers. For that matter, "legend" in the scientific sense means something or someone whose actual existence is somewhat doubtful. So I thought this would be an "urban myths" kind of list, not people who generally seemed to really exist, just post obnoxious articles. I would also add Internet pioneers for example as a bit better sourced variant with more encyclopedic standards. W Nowicki (talk) 00:25, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Delete. This is a headache waiting to happen for all of the reasons listed above. Tokyogirl79 (talk) 10:27, 25 August 2011 (UTC)tokyogirl79

The result was delete. Spartaz 08:28, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

List of miscellaneous All My Children couples

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

This is an unnecessary article. It is a list of mostly current couples that appear on the soap All My Children and is entirely filled with plot. There are no sources. Additionally, a page like this could become massive with no set parameters other than being a couple on the show. The show is 40 or so years old and there are hundreds and hundreds of miscellaneous couples that could be included. AniMate 16:32, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Delete - Article was formed by a sock puppet. The article itself is a mass of storylines and no real world information. Written asif these are famous real world couples. As this is fancruft, it is looking asif it is a All My Children's fan page. With no notablity and characters mentioned in the article already having their own stand alone articles, there is no need for this.RaintheOne 16:38, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 17:45, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 17:45, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 18:09, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Delete - wikipedia articles are WP:NOT plot summaries or an in-universe description of fictional details. Shooterwalker (talk) 00:21, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
Delete - Much of the material in the article has been plagiarized from soap central Wlmg (talk) 21:38, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
Delete I tend to think we should keep lists of characters. But "couples" is an arbitrary way to do it and Knowledge (XXG) would become a mess of original research and plot summaries if this became the norm. Dzlife (talk) 14:02, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

The result was delete. Spartaz 08:29, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

List of miscellaneous One Life to Live couples

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

This is an unnecessary article. It is a list of mostly current couples that appear on the soap One Life to Live and is entirely filled with plot. What sources there are appear to be links to plot summaries. Additionally, a page like this could become massive with no set parameters other than being a couple on the show. The show is 40 or so years old and there are hundreds and hundreds of miscellaneous couples that could be included. AniMate 16:31, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 17:46, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 17:47, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 18:09, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Delete - wikipedia articles are WP:NOT plot summaries or an in-universe description of fictional details. Shooterwalker (talk) 00:22, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
Delete see Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion/List of miscellaneous All My Children couples. I tend to think we should keep lists of characters. But "couples" is an arbitrary way to do it and Knowledge (XXG) would become a mess of original research and plot summaries if this became the norm. Dzlife (talk) 14:03, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

The result was delete. Sandstein 04:57, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Problems and the Solutions of leasing facility in many of banks

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

A proposed deletion was reverted without improvement or explanation. Reasoning was and is: An point-of-view essay and/or original research. Beeblebrox (talk) 16:05, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 18:07, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

delete per nominator. this reminds me a whole awful lot of this: Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion/Analysing e-commerce web sites. i wonder exactly what, if anything, is going on here? — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 19:03, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
Speedy userfy and delete as an outline without any substantive content. I gather that if it ever is filled out, it would be an essay on the administration of leases as an asset in banking. That essay would likely constitute original research, and be several things that Knowledge (XXG) is not for; but we can decide when it's actually written. This is a bare outline. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 20:24, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
Delete. Original research. Too far from an article to be worth userfication - author needs to copy text off before this AfD neds. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 22:55, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

The result was redirect to Barbie (film series). title presents a useful redirect (non-admin closure) Odie5533 (talk) 06:16, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Dance! Workout with Barbie

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

Nomination in response to good-faith help request at WT:AFD. Looks to fail WP:N and borders on advertising. —KuyaBriBri 16:12, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 18:06, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Redirect to Barbie (film series) as plausible redirect. There is some coverage here, but not enough in general (especially reviews) for a stand-alone article. No problem with using the aforementioned link to provide a little background to this film at the film series article. Erik (talk | contribs) 18:16, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Delete I nominated this for deletion already, I think it should redirect to Barbie (film series). I actually own this tape, and there's nothing special about it besides the fact that Barbie is animated using stopmotion and Jennifer Love Hewitt is in it, both of which are trivia if nothing else. SailorSonic —Preceding undated comment added 19:48, 24 August 2011 (UTC).

The result was delete. Spartaz 08:29, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

PsYcHeDeLiC Detached Garage Radio Show

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

Article about a radio show with no third-party sources at all. I can't find anything on this show that isn't a schedule, or is self-published by the radio station or the presenter of the show (). PROD removed by author with a deceptive edit summary. Black Kite (t) (c) 15:09, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Delete Found no coverage at Google News or their archive. Does not appear to satisfy notability. Delete per not a directory. A program being broadcast on a handful of radio stations is not sufficient to show encyclopedic notability. Edison (talk) 15:40, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 16:41, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Weak Delete as after cleaning up the article and fixing the references I've discovered that the station has moved from a purely internet-based show to a mix of online and terrestrial broadcasting this week. Indeed, the first episode on KZFX-LP won't be broadcast until this coming weekend. Still, there is currently insufficient coverage in reliable third-party sources and one station does not a network make. Userifying to the original author is preferred to outright deletion, I believe. - Dravecky (talk) 10:44, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
Delete. No sources found.--Huh direction (talk) 22:00, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

The result was delete. Sandstein 05:15, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Gonzalo Solis

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

This is an unreferenced biography of a soldier killed in WW2 at age 19. Nothing in the article suggests the subject of this article meets criteria for inclusion at WP:BIO. (Article was previously proposed for deletion, which was removed by the article's creator without explanation). Peacock (talk) 14:47, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 15:07, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 15:07, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Delete - Zero news hits, and Zero book hits about this specific subject; does not meet WP:ANYBIO, WP:GNG, or WP:SOLIDER. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 15:44, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
Delete He was killed in WW2, and received a Purple Heart and Bronze Star, per the article, but that does not satisfy the notability guideline WP:BIO or the military project's essay and proposed guideline WP:SOLDIER. Edison (talk) 15:46, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
Delete - Without any disrespect for his sacrifice I can see nothing that distinguishes this young man from any of the millions of other brave souls who have fought and died doing their duty in war. Ultimately it seems to me that the subject lacks "signficant coverage" in reliable sources and is therefore not notable under the WP:GNG. Anotherclown (talk) 20:50, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

The result was delete. Sandstein 05:06, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Nermin Haskić

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

Contested PROD. Concern was Article about a footballer who fails WP:GNG and who has not played in a fully pro league. PROD was contested on the grounds that he has played in the Bosnian Premier League, and in the UEFA Europa League. The Bosnian Premier League is listed and sourced at WP:FPL as not fully pro and therefore does not grant notability. His appearances in the Europa League have all been in qualifying, making them insufficient as well. Sir Sputnik (talk) 14:12, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 14:12, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 14:12, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 14:12, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
Delete. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Argyle 4 Life 17:12, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 19:28, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
Delete - I couldn't find sufficient coverage of this person in reliable sources and he appears to have only played in semi-pro football leagues. Jogurney (talk) 04:24, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

The result was keep. I'm not sure about friaries being automatically notable but there's a clear consensus that this one is. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:45, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Great Yarmouth Carmelite Friary

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

No indication of noteability via third party sources. Single line stub with no edits since it's creation other than adding cats. Jtrainor (talk) 14:02, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

keep references added. wrongful nomination: friaries are notable. Slowking4: 7@1|x 15:02, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 15:03, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 15:03, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

keep I wouldn't say friaries are notable by default, but that I could not conceive of a friary for which sufficient sources couldn't be found to establish notability. Slowking4 has now added such sources to his article.--Pontificalibus (talk) 17:14, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

i stand corrected; exactly right. it's not that it's inherently notable, rather it's inconceivable to be unsourceable, especially given the monuments heritage database. there are a thousand like this, you could force me to source by afd, wouldn't it be better to get a geo quality circle up to source them? i'm preoccupied with NRHP stuff, but this is on my to do list (just way down). Slowking4: 7@1|x 14:12, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Weak keep I'd like to see some more reliable sources, such as books, but I'm sure such sources exist. -- 202.124.74.145 (talk) 01:23, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
Keep per the history and sources found since the afd began. More sources found which can be used. . The WP:AFD instructions include WP:BEFORE. Not having been edited since creation is not criteria for article deletion. --Oakshade (talk) 05:27, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
Keep, this is exactly the sort of information that one looks for in an encyclopedia. Bella the Ball (talk) 09:20, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
Keep, monastries, priories etc are generally notable enough to sustain articles. Mjroots (talk) 05:03, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
Keep -- The friary had a long enough history to be worth having an article on. The fact that it survives as a listed building only adds to that. It would certainly be better if some one could expand the article from the present stub.
Keep - sources given clearly indicate this is a notable historic entity. LadyofShalott 01:33, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

The result was keep. Page still needs sources, but consensus indicates keep. (non-admin closure) BusterD (talk) 13:57, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Amc yola

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

non notable school with no sources and none to find. Karl 334 13:53, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 15:00, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 15:00, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Keep. It's poorly written and formatted, but it exists (I Googled its former names), and per current consensus, that's enough for an article on a secondary school (they are inherently notable). Article should probably be moved to "Aliyu Musdafa College." –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 16:59, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
Keep Yes, it exists and should be considered. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Iamsam56 (talk • contribs) 19:27, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
Keep. African schools are under-represented on Knowledge (XXG), and many more articles are needed to counter the systemic bias. The article needs a lot of work and should be renamed, but it appears to be an important school. One of the candidates for the Nigerian presidency was educated at this school: http://nigerianpilot.com/?q=content/presidential-election-big-four. Dahliarose (talk) 23:27, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
Keep - the reasons why high schools should be kept are given in the essay WP:NHS. I'll sort the page out in the next few days. TerriersFan (talk) 00:13, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
Keep - The article is a mess, but the subject meets standards for inclusion. Bella the Ball (talk) 09:22, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

The result was delete. Sandstein 05:05, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Nelibandla

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

Non-notable surname, none of the people listed in this page have articles Ryan Vesey Review me! 13:28, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

comment that fact doesn't make the subject of the article non-notable. names can be notable in themselves, regardless of the notability of the things they name. anyway, I don't know enough to !vote on this, but I'll inform the relevant project about it, anyway. — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 14:29, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
Note: WikiProject Anthroponymy has been informed of this ongoing discussion. — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 14:29, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 14:58, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 14:58, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Delete Not notable. Zuggernaut (talk) 17:40, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
comment — it appears that this should be a disambiguation page rather than an article per se. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 02:25, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
- Delete — I composed an alternate form at Talk:Nelibandla. The surname use is not mentioned in the caste article nor is there sufficient content to support a surname page. The village is not mentioned in the Guntur article nor is there an article for the village. None of the people are noted are present in wikipedia with biographical articles. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 02:36, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
delete your user page version looks excellent to me. i think we should delete the current page and then move yours into the space. — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 04:30, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
- Comment I really don't think the version on the talk page should be used. None of the information in this article can be verified. I did a google maps search for "nelibandla" and nothing was found. I now believe this article is a hoax. Ryan Vesey Review me! 04:35, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
- comment it's not a hoax as far as the surname goes; there are plenty of people in Andhra Pradesh near Guntur and Vanapamula named Nelibandla, Nellibandla, Nalibandla, etc. The other two towns mentioned in the article are real. it's possible that we just don't know how to transliterate it. in any case, i still don't think i have an opinion on this, and i'm not about to learn telugu in order to get one. — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 05:22, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

The result was delete. Sandstein 05:18, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Adam DeVita

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

Clearly does not meet the notability guideline as per WP:POLITICIAN Mr. No Funny Nickname (talk) 16:56, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. —Mr. No Funny Nickname (talk) 17:09, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. —Mr. No Funny Nickname (talk) 17:13, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Keep Although I agree with Mr. No Funny Nickname that simply being a politician is not grounds for notability, this politician has received coverage from every major national newspaper in Canada (National Post, Toronto Star, Globe and Mail), as well as plenty of local newspapers. WP:POLITICIAN states "just being an elected local official, or an unelected candidate for political office, does not guarantee notability, although such people can still be notable if they meet the primary notability criterion of 'significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject of the article'." This article meets the mentioned notability criterion. There are plenty of newspaper sources dedicated entirely to Adam DeVita, such as here and here. Note that both of these articles also appeared in print in YorkRegion.com's printed local newspaper, the Richmond Hill Liberal. Combined with the Globe and Mail, National Post, Toronto Star and Professional Engineers Ontario, we have numerous verifiable reliable secondary sources independent of the subject, clearly meeting notability. Poyani (talk) 19:14, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
Delete, per nomination. "Coverage" is trivial outside of yorkregion.com, his local area. PK T(alk) 19:45, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

PKT - that seems rather unfair. With all due respect, a lot of articles dealing with Richmond Hill only have coverage by yorkregion.com, let alone any trivial coverage from National Post, Toronto Star or Globe and Mail. I don't understand why we are being so selective here. For example, how can we justify the notability of Brother André Catholic High School yet not this article. Poyani (talk) 21:39, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Knowledge (XXG)'s notability guidelines for people and for schools are different, and the differences are irrelevant to this discussion. What is relevant is whether Mr. DeVita's history, or coverage of him, meets WP:POLITICIAN, and I don't think they do. PK T(alk) 20:47, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Delete - seems to be a case of WP:BLP1E, doesn't meet WP:POLITICIAN. Unsuccessful election candidates are not automatically notable; in this case, all the coverage of him seems to be routine coverage relating to the election, which is what makes this a 'one event'-type article in my view. I note that he is up for election again in October, and it might seem a little silly to delete this article now when if he wins then he will definitely be notable; but in that event the article can always be recreated, whereas if he loses he won't be any more notable than he is now. Robofish (talk) 23:51, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
Delete per POLITICIAN, candidates aren't notable. 117Avenue (talk) 22:07, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

The result was Speedy delete g12, copyright infringement. NawlinWiki (talk) 16:47, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Waterfalls(082145)

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

Duplication of material found elsewhere in Knowledge (XXG) (see WP:Content forking) and copyright violation of various non-Knowledge (XXG) sources (see here for a duplicate description of the "geological formation of Sri Lanka" and here for a description of the "103 rivers and streams", to name just two). WikiDan61_ReadMe!! 13:09, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sri Lanka-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 14:15, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 14:15, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

I have removed all text copied from external websites and inserted hidden markup identifying text lifted directly from other Knowledge (XXG) articles. I say speedy delete as a copyright infringement of multiple sources, because if I was to continue piecemeal deleting infringing text, there won't be much of an article left when I'm done. —KuyaBriBri 14:45, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:47, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Spiritual-Normal

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

Knowledge (XXG) is not a forum to put up your personal beliefs. Content is not suited for an encyclopedia. _ennasis @ 12:09, 24 Av 5771 / 12:09, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. —_ennasis @ 13:09, 24 Av 5771 / 13:09, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Delete as a neologistic soapbox. St Anselm (talk) 13:38, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
delete I can see an article with this title consisting of encyclopedic content describing the content of the belief and the context in which and by whom it is believed. however, this personal essay with no secondary sourcing is never going to turn into that article ever. thus delete with no prejudice. — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 14:17, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
Delete: when you've got an article sourced only to primary religious texts, that's a pretty good indication that it is original research. Nor do I see the coverage in reliable sources that might justify any kind of rescue. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 16:46, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
Delete - Random religious musings do not belong in Knowledge (XXG). Bella the Ball (talk) 09:27, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
Delete as the procedural nominator. I dream of horses (T) @ 03:46, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

The result was delete. Sandstein 05:21, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

EB Expo

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

Future gaming convention. No attempt made to show notability. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 11:54, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 14:17, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 14:18, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 14:18, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Delete. Fails WP:EVENT. WWGB (talk) 14:23, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
Delete: Non-notable future event. Joe Chill (talk) 21:27, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
At the moment, Google Oz searches for "EB Expo" only give the event page, plus gaming/tech reports and blogs saying "Hey, EB are throwing together an expo. Wonder how this will go?", and company press releases saying "EB are throwing an expo. We'll give it a go." On that basis, I think the article as its stands does not meet verifiability policy or the general notability guideline. There's a chance that this convention/trade show may become notable in the future. If it starts rolling, it'll be the closest Australia is going to get to an E3-type event (at least the pre-public-banning incarnation). However, if notability for EB expo is going to happen, the event needs to 1) happen, 2) be recognised by multiple reliable published sources independent of EB Games Australia...independent of the gaming industry would be even better and 3) become a recurring, annual, reported on event. In the meantime, I think the article should be deleted, or alternately, a reliably sourced paragraph or section be added to the EB Australia article, and this redirected there. -- saberwyn 02:05, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
Delete, at present, looks like a bog standard industry trade show. If, once it occurs, there is enough coverage and novelty to this event, then sure, an article is appropriate. But not right now. Lankiveil 08:36, 28 August 2011 (UTC).

The result was delete. Spartaz 08:29, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Daniel Priestley

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

The subject's book was reviewed in the Financial Times , but that's the only reliable source I can find with any coverage. Does not meet WP:AUTHOR, or WP:GNG's requirement of multiple independent reliable sources. January (talk) 11:01, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes, a book review is not coverage of the topic which is the person. And that is the one and only reference in the article. So, no indication of wp:notability. Also no specific even claims of notability in the article except authoring of the book. North8000 (talk) 11:31, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 14:57, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 14:57, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Delete - Other than having written a book that has received a single review, this article gives no evidence of the notability of the author. Also links to the subject's blog - swell, but having a blog does not make one notable. Bella the Ball (talk) 09:34, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BusterD (talk) 00:08, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Delete Completely fails WP:AUTHOR, he has basically no coverage anywhere. --Odie5533 (talk) 05:47, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

The result was delete. — Cirt (talk) 18:29, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Revolution (2R album)

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

No references and no notability. Period! Gh87 (talk) 06:25, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 08:14, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Delete I completely agree. Delete! 11coolguy12 (talk) 09:24, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BusterD (talk) 10:53, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Delete No indication of notability, zero references. Doesn't even have notability related assertions in the text. North8000 (talk) 11:33, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
Delete This is a listing of tracks, not an article. Would be interesting information if this were a CD shop. Bella the Ball (talk) 09:36, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. —Michaela den (talk) 10:14, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

The result was incubate. Knowledge (XXG):Article Incubator/Kunjaliyan. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:49, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Kunjaliyan

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

Contested PROD: Film not yet in production Eeekster (talk) 03:43, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 08:12, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 08:13, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Delete. Fails WP:NFF, insignificant coverage. --Rob Sinden (talk) 08:48, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
Incubate While pre-production and planning have "some" coverage, its not enough to merit being an exception to NFF. We can instead incubate this article until next month, when principle filming is slated to begin. Schmidt, 05:52, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BusterD (talk) 10:48, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Userfy to wait / incubate (if someone will take it) No indication of wp:notability, hasn't even started filming yet. North8000 (talk) 11:36, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

The result was delete. — Cirt (talk) 18:29, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Dave Sterling

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

Unable to find significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject of this unsourced BLP. He does not appear to meet MUSICBIO either, his albums appear to be self-released. J04n(talk page) 03:23, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Delete - I didn't see any notable sources on Yahoo and Google. If Knowledge (XXG) had a page for every indie and under the radar musician, the amounts of articles would skyrocket. SwisterTwister talk 04:06, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 08:11, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BusterD (talk) 10:45, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Delete Zero references, no indication of wp:notability, ability to meet wp: notability looks unlikely. North8000 (talk) 11:39, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

The result was Speedy delete under G11, unambiguous advertising or promotion by User:Fluffernutter. (non-admin closure) Quasi human | Talk 21:05, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Nikhil Gupta

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

Apparently non-notable, promotional BLP. Astrology forums on facebook which aren't even about this astrologer are not a good basis for an article. bobrayner (talk) 10:45, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 10:59, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Delete I checked the two non-Facebook "references" and there was nothing about this person there. Copy is all promotional. North8000 (talk) 11:44, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 14:56, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Delete Borderline speedyable; no reliable sources to support notability. OhNoitsJamie 15:58, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
Delete: Fails WP:BIO. Very close to being alright to speedy delete. Joe Chill (talk) 21:16, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
Speedy Delete: I've tagged it up for WP:SPEEDY. The article was probably created by the subject himself (User:Nikhil.mba.gupta). The person is truly non-notable. Of the references/external links supplied in the article, only two of them pass WP:RS ( and ) - and none of them have any reference to the subject. All the others are from his own website , an obscure blog about Astrology, Facebook comments, and various posts from astrology forums (all are either WP:SPS or WP:USERG). Absolutely no coverage in popular Indian media. Vote for speedy deletion under criterion WP:A7 — Fιηεmαηη 20:45, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
Comment: My personal thinking was that claims like "known for his worldwide popularity" might disqualify the article from A7. Those sentences might not be true - that's why we're discussing deletion - but notability is at least claimed. Whatever; as long as te article goes, I'm happy. bobrayner (talk) 08:50, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
Comment: The subject has already posted the Knowledge (XXG) link on his website (http://www.nikhilworld.com/myself.html), saying that it gives his full profile. I guess it is very okay now to assume that User:Nikhil.mba.gupta is the subject himself, and he created this article just for promotional purposes. — Fιηεmαηη 21:00, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

The result was delete. — Cirt (talk) 18:29, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Driveoff.Com

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

Delete not WP:NOTABLE tagged April 2011 LES 953 (talk) 03:19, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Delete - Not much on Google (nothing on Google News) and Yahoo aside from two mentions here focusing on the acquisition from Microsoft. There was another news statement before the acquisition here. SwisterTwister talk 03:57, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 08:11, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BusterD (talk) 10:44, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

delete The only two references are 11 years old about it's acquisition 11 years ago. No content to worry about losing. North8000 (talk) 11:47, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

The result was keep. — Cirt (talk) 18:29, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

AQuantive

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

~~Delete~~ not WP:NOTABLE LES 953 (talk) 02:21, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 03:15, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Keep. If a company is sold for $US 6 billion, then it is probably notable. I added some references. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 03:15, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Keep 3 reliable independent sources added. LES 953 (talk) 05:45, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 08:11, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Keep per the newly added sources and WP:ORG the company is sufficiently notable. Marokwitz (talk) 10:06, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 02:28, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BusterD (talk) 10:44, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

keep Anything that Microsoft paid $6,000,000,000 for has got to be wp:notable. North8000 (talk) 11:49, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
Keep: Notable. Joe Chill (talk) 21:16, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

The result was delete. — Cirt (talk) 18:29, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Cozmo (producer)

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

Unable to find significant coverage in relaible sources independent of the subject of this unsourced BLP. A few trivial mentions of him in articles about others but nothing of significance. J04n(talk page) 01:10, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — Logan _Talk 01:46, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. — Logan _Talk 01:46, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

delete per nom. no coverage other than usual promotional nonsense. Alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 01:56, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BusterD (talk) 10:43, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Delete No Indication of WP notability. The only reference was a review of a CD which credited them. North8000 (talk) 11:53, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

The result was no consensus. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:53, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Ex Norwegian

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

Fails WP:BAND Vanadus (talk | contribs) 23:09, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 01:28, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Comment: One of the criteria for WP:BAND is if they were "...a featured subject of a substantial broadcast segment across a national radio or TV network." In one of the sources for the article, it is mentioned that they played on "...Sky News channel hugely popular European show Sky Live that broadcasts their live performance to millions of people." As I don't know much about this broadcast, I will not actually vote on this submission, but someone else more familiar with it may be able to determine if this appearance fits the requirement or not. Topher385 (talk) 19:25, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
Delete only found incidental, local coverage and false positives out the yin-yang. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • 13:15, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:24, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 00:03, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Weak Keep I think that they make it (just barely) on wp:notability. North8000 (talk) 14:15, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

The result was keep. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:53, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

List of Nitrome Limited games

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

Reproduction of site's own content, possibly non-notable, and certain columns are OR Aaaamm (talk) 09:08, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 10:59, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 14:53, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 14:53, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Keep There are 14 separate game reviews on Gamezebo alone, a review for Test Subject Green on GamePro, 6 reviews on indiegames.com, a handful of pieces on Rock, Paper, Shotgun, a metric shitload on Jay is Games. And that's after a limited search. There's no issue with collective notability here, in fact some of these games will be independently notable, but a list like this is a good start. It isn't perfect, and some of the descriptions are on the large side, but it's nothing that editing can't fix. Someone another 00:23, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
Keep as per Someone another. Seems notable and discriminate. Just needs some editing and attention. Dzlife (talk) 14:00, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
Keep – valid list, looks like notability is established. –MuZemike 17:06, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
Keep. As others have said, it needs editing, not deleting. I've done plenty of work on it (before I created this account), but I haven't had the time lately. It would be good if others could help. ...Dynamic|cimanyD... (talk|klat) ☺ 17:10, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

The result was delete. Sandstein 05:14, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

2006 Luham bus crash

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

Non-notable bus crash. Yes lots of people died, but no mention of this after it happened, no controversy, no sourcing, and orphaned. WP:NOTNEWS Cerejota (talk) 08:26, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nepal-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 08:48, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 14:51, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Delete. This is a classic example of an article failing WP:EVENT. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 15:05, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
Delete per nom; absent coverage after the fact or lasting effect, this is just news. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 17:03, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
Delete - Classic example of a 'bus plunge' story: sad, but no lasting notability. Robofish (talk) 15:25, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
Keep. 42 people dying in a road accident? Of course it's notable. Just imagine if it had happened in the USA or UK... We can't possibly expect an accident in Nepal to get a fraction of the coverage a similar accident would get in the developed world, but that doesn't mean it's any less notable. WP:SYSTEMIC. -- Necrothesp (talk) 21:20, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

I am all for countering systemic bias, but this is a classic bus plunge, which unless the people who die in it are notable, are not notable. There are similar accidents that occur world wide quite regularly, including in the USA. Bus plunges, in general, fail WP:NOTNEWSPAPER no matter were they happen.--Cerejota (talk) 21:37, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

That's your opinion. I'm afraid it's not mine. If you look at List of road accidents 2000–2009 and List of road accidents 2010–2019, you will see that every single crash in the USA with anywhere near this loss of life (and considerably less) has an article (not that many, but that's not the issue). And rightly so. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:15, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

The bulk of the information in those lists are for accidents without articles. I have no problem with this crash being included in the appropriate list. However please read WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS.--Cerejota (talk) 23:50, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. I am very well aware of the existence of WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. However, that is not my point at all. -- Necrothesp (talk) 00:20, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Comment. Note that articles on air accidents with similar numbers of casualties are usually kept with little opposition. I wonder why? Could it be that people consider aeroplanes "sexier" than buses? If this is the reason then it's a very poor lookout for a serious encyclopaedia. If it's not the reason then I'm at a loss to work out what is. -- Necrothesp (talk) 17:04, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Because airplane accidents are much more rarer than bus accidents with the same amount of casualties, hence the treatment in reliable sources is much different. --Cerejota (talk) 23:53, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, but I don't see the validity of your point. Being rarer doesn't make an incident any more notable. It just makes it rarer. -- Necrothesp (talk) 00:20, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Facepalm You then need to take your discussion into WP:NOTE, because I am explaining to you policy, not debating it. If you want the rules changed, be my guest, but you wont do that in an AfD.--Cerejota (talk) 00:54, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

The result was delete. Sandstein 05:17, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Executive team coaching

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

Non-notable hidden advertisement for the http://the-next-level.com/ Cerejota (talk) 08:23, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 08:48, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Delete per nomination. Coatrack spam to do with executive leadership development. No real information, just banal truisms and tautologies. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 15:08, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
Delete per nom. Smerdis has it, I think - this appears to be spam. UltraExactZZ ~ Did 17:09, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

The result was merge to Banaras Hindu University. Spartaz 08:30, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

School of Biotechnology, Banaras Hindu University

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

Delete or Merge. Pages for separate departments of universities should be created only when the department is notable. I don't see how this small department (7 faculty) is notable. I might be worthwhile to merge. Muhandes (talk) 07:57, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 08:48, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 14:49, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

KeepThis is Dr. Arun P. Sikarwar, who had created this wiki article. I am sorry to feel that Wiki has put the level of "Deletion" to this article. I strongly believe that the wiki article should remain there and if necessary, then I can keep only most important things and can delete less important items. The School of Biotechnology, Banaras Hindu University is renowned for MSc Biotechnology in India and deserve to be on Wiki.I hope the article will survive at Wiki. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arunlovy (talk • contribs) 12:55, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Comment: Banaras Hindu University is renowned for MSc Biotechnology in India - it might be, it probably is the best. But Knowledge (XXG) is not a place to offer advice to people aiming to pursue biotech as a career. — Fιnεmαnn 17:28, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Delete and Merge From what I could find from GScholar the biotech department of BHU has not produced any research that is significantly notable. The article could be merged with the article about the university though. — Fιnεmαnn 20:41, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Keep This is a renowned institution with enough independent coverage. Shyamsunder (talk) 22:42, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Comment BHU is a renowned institution with independent coverage. That applies to the biotech department too. But as the nom pointed out, unless the department has done enough work to be notable for itself, I don't think its appropriate for it to have an article. See for yourself how many biotech departments of Ivy League universities have articles. Also, your argument is very weak as you simply assert that it is notable without giving any proper reasons. — Fιnεmαnn 00:53, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Merge to the university article to the extent it is sourced. No indication of independent notability. Sandstein 05:21, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

The result was delete. Sandstein 05:17, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Darryl Foster

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

GNews brings up a surprisingly large number of different individuals named Darryl Foster, but I couldn't find any significant independent coverage of this one, except for two pieces from fringe-y authors/publications promoting his brand of "ex-gay therapy" and a few trivial mentions where he's quoted in passing or used as a frame story to talk about something else. Fails WP:BIO per lack of significant coverage in reliable sources. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 06:53, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 08:47, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 08:47, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 08:48, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 14:24, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

~~Keep~~. The best sources are Lifesitenews.com, The Augusta Chronicle and Charisma magazine. I cannot figure out how extensive the coverage is inside the journal Charisma and Christian life, but it does not look very extensive from available snippets. Anyway, the three linked stories are enough significant independent coverage to meet WP:BASIC's requirements. Binksternet (talk) 17:07, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

I wouldn't consider LSN or Charisma reliable sources ("homosexuality's trap" etc. in the latter is a pretty clear indication that it's covered under the "extremist" part of WP:QS, and LSN's lack of reliability is known). –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 17:26, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Delete. I see now that the Lifesitenews.com story does not approach the subject of homosexuality in a neutral manner, nor does the Charisma story. They both say, in effect, this guy is 100% right and there is no chance that his ideas are wrong. No opposing views are entertained. Binksternet (talk) 20:11, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Delete. No significant coverage in reliable sources.--В и к и в и н д T a L k 20:49, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
Delete. If the Augusta Chronicle article above is the best we have, it's not sufficiently deep or substantial coverage to justify notability - WP:BIO refers to notability being presumed for 'the subject of multiple published secondary sources', and notes that 'If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability'. The Augusta Chronicle article is only one source, and not of substantial depth, and the others mentioned above are not reliable (and potentially not independent of the subject). Carminowe of Hendra (talk) 21:29, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Alpha Quadrant 23:49, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Joe Dallas

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

Non-notable fringe theorist without significant coverage in reliable sources - fails WP:BIO. Article is full of self-published sources promoting "ex-gay therapy," but there's nothing to replace them with because no reliable sources care about this guy. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 05:15, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 05:37, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 05:37, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Comment The Christian Post seems an RS on first blush. Can you comment on how you've attempted to find sources WP:BEFORE, and what you've accomplished? Would you be willing to see this merged to Ex-gay movement if we do determine that he lacks sufficient notability? Jclemens (talk) 05:41, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
- It does indeed seem like "the opposition" takes him seriously enough: Truth Wins Out comments on him. I don't see any Google News sources on him on a quick search, though. Jclemens (talk) 05:45, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
  - TWO wouldn't be considered RS, though; likewise the Christian Post article promoting "ex-gay" theories is a poor source. We need sources that aren't jumping on this guy to advocate for one side or another, ie. who are covering him because he is notable rather than to further their own agenda. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 05:53, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
    - Sure, TWO's an acceptable source for what they think about Dallas per WP:SELFPUB. For many marginally notable people like Dallas, the fact that he's been noted by his opponents is a mark in favor of his notability. The religious orientation of RS'es is not a relevant factor, but I agree that we don't have multiple RS covering him as of yet. Jclemens (talk) 05:56, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
      - I disagree that being mentioned by the opposition counts as notability, but it's a fair argument. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 06:02, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
- Looking at his Google Scholar link above, he's cited in a number of places, but none of them jump out at me as peer reviewed on first pass. On the other hand, Google Books shows him quoted in books on Christianity and homosexuality published by Zondervan, InterVarsity Press, and College Press, which are all major publishers of Christian thought. Unsurprisingly, he's also mentioned in many other products from Harvest House who seem to be his primary publisher--although given that they're not a vanity press, I'm not sure how much that matters. I'm leaning towards keeping this as a separate article rather than merging it. Jclemens (talk) 06:03, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
  - The College Press source is by Joe Dallas, not about him; it's not independent and cannot be used to attest notability. Likewise, the Harvest House mentions appear to be ads for "other books we publish," not coverage. The Zondervan and InterVarsity mentions are trivial. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 06:20, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
I'm going to go ahead and say Keep, with an alternative to merge to Ex-gay movement if we decide he's not sufficiently notable. Jclemens (talk) 23:09, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
Keep Flies past WP:BASIC. Quick Google search shows: Local actions: cultural activism, power, and public life in America , CBN , the debate between Dallas and Soulforce's Cindy Love was covered by numerous sources including Baptist Press , and also this

"Homosexuality in the church" is the author biography for Dallas's own piece in that book, not independent coverage; "Local Actions" is trivial (you also linked it twice - hope you're not just trying to make it look like you have more sources); CBN and SBC Press are fringe/promotional. Got any real sources that provide significant coverage? –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 07:08, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Local Actions... is not trivial as the 2nd link indicates. CBN is biographical, and WP:RS. How can Baptist Press be promotional? To the contrary it accurately and fairly presents Love's views, Love being Dallas' ideological opposite. Article has substantial coverage.– Lionel 07:25, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Keep. For better or worse, Joe Dallas has played a significant role in shaping the evangelical Christian discourse surrounding homosexuality, and is frequently cited by other conservative writers on the topic. Examples include: Richard Cohen, Coming Out Straight: Understanding and Healing Homosexuality (Winchester, Virginia: Oakhill Press, 2006, ISBN 1-886939-47-0), page 196; Mike Haley, 101 Frequently Asked Questions about Homosexuality (Eugene, Oregon: Harvest House Publishing, 2004, ISBN 0-7369-1470-6), pages 31, 72, 91, 151, 186, 205, 219; Joseph Nicolosi, Reparative Therapy of Male Homosexuality: A New Clinical Approach (Northvale, New Jersey: Jason Aronson Inc., 1991, ISBN 0-87668-545-9), page 97; Chad W. Thompson, Loving Homosexuals as Jesus Would: A Fresh Christian Approach (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Brazos Press, 2004, ISBN 1-58743-121-1), pages 10, 34, 69, 143, 149. Given his prominence in shaping the debate, it would be a shame to not have an article about him for reference purposes. Arkivarius talk 13:43, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

These sources are all questionably reliable, given their promotional nature, and most are trivial anyway; the cite count itself isn't substantial enough to satisfy WP:ACADEMIC. You seem to be suggesting that mentions in "ex-gay" tracts are sufficient, but that's exactly the kind of walled-garden approach that others have commented on with regard to these articles on fringe movements. We need significant coverage in reliable sources. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 16:20, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Knowledge (XXG)'s guidelines for notability based solely on local sources are relevant here as an analogy: if the subject gets significant coverage only in local papers (~ media promoting the "ex-gay" theory, like the books you cited, CBN, Zondervan), then it is not notable enough for an encyclopedia that covers the whole world. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 16:26, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

I also ran a search on JSTOR and was able to locate two scholarly articles that appear to address Joe Dallas’ ideas – Lynne Gerber, “The Opposite of Gay: Nature, Creation, and Queerish Ex-Gay Experiments” , Nova Religio: The Journal of Alternative and Emergent Religions 11 (May 2008): 8-30; and Christy M. Ponticelli, “Crafting Stories of Sexual Identity Reconstruction” , Social Psychology Quarterly 62 (1999): 157-172. Judging from the abstracts, both of these sources appear to take a neutral position on the ex-gay movement, although since I don’t have a JSTOR subscription, I don’t know what exactly they’re saying about him; they might furnish material for a section on “Criticism of Joe Dallas.” Either way, the fact that he’s mentioned in academic literature should weigh in favor of considering his ideas and the discourse of which he forms a part notable. I feel a better solution than deleting the article would be to edit it for NPOV and improve the sourcing to place his writings in context. Arkivarius talk 04:14, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

I do have JSTOR access, and the mentions of Dallas, just like the mentions in other reliable sources, are too trivial to attest notability. (Brief quoting; the second one has two hits for his name and one is to say that someone else it talks about is Joe Dallas's wife!) –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 04:35, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. —–Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 16:48, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:56, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Vinyl Pusoy

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

Knowledge (XXG) is not for madeup stuff. --Σ _contribs 04:48, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 04:51, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 04:51, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Delete Appears to be completely made up. I can't even find anything about it from a general Google web search. Silver seren 04:58, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
Delete should have been speedied.-- Obsidi♠n Soul 04:59, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Speedied under what? --Σ _contribs 05:06, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

A7? It is web content, isn't it?-- Obsidi♠n Soul 05:13, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Hm, yep. Browser games are included in {{Db-web}} -- Obsidi♠n Soul 05:16, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

The first sentence states that it's a card game though. That first sentence prompted me to AfD instead of CSD. --Σ _contribs 05:26, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Ah, okay. I'm confused as well. I know Pusoy Dos is a local card game here, but I got the impression that this was played online. Now that you mentioned the lead, I'm not so sure. Anyway, whatever works! :P -- Obsidi♠n Soul 05:45, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Delete. Nonsense article without any reliable source. Keb25 (talk) 16:51, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
Delete: A made up game. Joe Chill (talk) 21:25, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

The result was delete. Sandstein 05:19, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Jeremy Drummond

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

WP:N -- was unable to find reliable, secondary sources to evidence the notability of this author under WP:GNG nor WP:AUTHOR. joe decker 04:16, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 04:46, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Delete, non-notable self-published author - probably a vanity page. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 07:00, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
Delete. No significant coverage in independent reliable sources. Binksternet (talk) 17:24, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

The result was keep. Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:00, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Bachro

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

Stub, no references, WP:NOTE, WP:INDISCRIMINATE, ... Safety Cap (talk) 02:07, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

~~Delete~~ Agree since it is unreferenced, would need to be remade MadCow257 (talk) 02:27, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
- Keep obviousley the page has now been improved MadCow257 (talk) 16:29, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 04:47, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Keep - populated places that can be determined to exist (I Googled) are inherently notable. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 07:01, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Comment I don't see that anywhere in the GNG. Where do you get the guideline that places with a population are inherently notable? Yunshui (talk) 09:26, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Nevermind, found it at WP:Notability (geography). An essay, rather than a guideline, but nevertheless suggests that population and existence imply notability. Yunshui (talk) 12:56, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

The guideline does say that only government-recognized places are inherently notable, FWIW. D O N D E groovily Talk to me 14:36, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Keep Per WP:FIVE #1 "Gazeteer" and WP:NPLACE.--Pontificalibus (talk) 10:48, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
Keep per WP:NPLACE. Binksternet (talk) 17:21, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
Keep: Community consensus has long been that populated places like villages are inherently notable. The same goes for animal species, animal genus, and so forth. Joe Chill (talk) 21:20, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
Keep and remind the nominator that AFD is not for articles that can be improved by normal editing. "Stub" and "no references" are reasons to improve an article not to delete them - especially when the article was less than twenty minutes old when it was tagged for AFD. Please remember to carry out wp:Before before tagging articles for AFD. Ϣere SpielChequers 21:07, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
Keep Listed in the GEOnet Names Server, a reliable source, and as stated above verifiable populated places are notable. TheCatalyst31 03:43, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

The result was Keep per WP:SNOWBALL. Me-123567-Me (talk) 20:24, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Death and state funeral of Jack Layton

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

Knowledge (XXG) is not a memorial. Most of this material is already in the subject's biography Ohconfucius 01:58, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

~~Keep~~. A state funeral is notable, not to mention he wouldn't even be entitled to a state funeral. This article will only expand as details about his death and funeral continue to be released. 117Avenue (talk) 02:04, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
- Speedy keep. Overwhelming response shortly after nomination. 117Avenue (talk) 04:08, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
Keep please see Pierre Truedeau, Ronald Reagan, Gerald Ford, etc. Rusted AutoParts (talk) 2:04 24 August 2011 (UTC)
Strong keep per Rusted AutoParts—FoxCE (talk | contribs) 02:07, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
- In addition, did you not notice the "current event" tag when you placed the AFD tag? Most of the material is already in the subject's biography because the state funeral is not until Saturday — FoxCE (talk | contribs) 02:10, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
(~~double~~ triple edit conflict) Keep per WP:GNG. If it's not a clear cut case by now, it will be by this week-end, so why bother? The state broadcaster will spend the day covering this event as will all other media outlets in the country. I acknowledge this argument is edging on WP:CRYSTAL, however it will meet the GNG criteria before this discussion even ends in 7 days. And even though WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a proper rationale, see Special:PrefixIndex/Death and state funeral of and Special:PrefixIndex/Death and funeral of to see similar articles. — Charlie Echo Tango — 02:10, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Pretty much settles the issue : State funeral for Opposition leader without precedent. A perfect example of why this article meets WP:GNG. — Charlie Echo Tango — 02:27, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

I'd have to agree with CharlieEchoTango's comments that this is a clear keep. Can we please not have a big red deletion tag on the article while the funeral is actually taking place and being broadcast by all the major Canadian networks? It's a little embarrassing. Paul Erik 02:35, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Agreed... I think the nominator should seriously consider retracting this nomination, it is not going to succeed — FoxCE (talk | contribs) 02:37, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

I'd like to note that I see the nominator's point (and, as a matter of fact, I was about to nominate it for WP:SPEEDY under A10); this is essentially a fork from the main article. To compare it to Ronald Reagan's and Pierre Trudeau's articles is a little rash, because the state funerals of those persons were large events and had much to write about (and, to boot, Trudeau's made Newsmaker of the Year by the Canadian Press). If Jack Layton's funeral turns out to be like many other funerals, then there really is no reason to keep this article. _EricLeb (Page | Talk) 03:21, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Of course it's a fork, and forks are perfectly fine. What about WP:GNG, Ericleb01? This topic has already been the subject of multiple, substantial, non-trivial coverage by reliable sources, which will be multiplied when the funeral actually happens (you guys know how big these funerals get, right? More than 50,000 people paid their respect to Trudeau, if I recall correctly). So no, it's not rash to compare PET's funeral to Layton's funeral, although they do have a different context (one a former head of government, the other the first leader of the opposition to be granted the honour of a state funeral). But regardless of any other argument, it easily, and already, passes GNG, which is in itself a reason to keep. Best, — Charlie Echo Tango — 03:38, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Sympathetic delete. That something is a notable facet of something else does not automatically necessitate a new article. There isn't much to add to this fork that isn't already in Layton's article, and aside from the repetitive platitudes from politicos offering condolences, there simply wont be much new in this article even after the funeral. That being said, the result of this AFD was a foregone conclusion from the start, as WP:NOTNEWS almost never defeats a rush to cover what does not require it's own article so soon after an event. Reso lute 03:30, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
Snowball Keep with no prejudice against a 2nd AFD nomination or merge after the event. Notability is clear, as per Charlie Echo Tango above. If there are strong arguments that this is an unnecessary content fork after the event, renominate it for merge or deletion.Vulcan's Forge (talk) 04:01, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 04:33, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 04:33, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Comment – Given that Jack Layton#Illness and death is just about as large as this article, I also wonder if this is an unnecessary split, not to mention both are saying similar things. It seems very redundant to me. However, I'm not Canadian, and I don't know how this will play out, so I could be jumping the gun here. But I need to mention that, just because something has some reliable sources, doesn't always mean that it needs to have a separate article just because the notability guidelines say so. If something can be mentioned easily in the context in another article and no other issues are present, then I see no reason to scatter everything all over the place and fluster readers. (gets off soapbox) –MuZemike 04:43, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for your comment. You mention that the section in the main article is just about as large as this article, and I agree it is right now; however, this is very much a current event and my belief is that this article will expand over the week and especially over the week-end when all heads are turned towards this funeral. I've seen too many times where a 'news' article is nominated to AfD with the underlying argument that is too small/should be merged but somehow survives and becomes much bigger. That is the very nature of current events. But then I know this is not covered by any guideline and at this time edges on the side of WP:CRYSTAL. As for your mention of 'reliable source' vs. 'notability of a specific topic', I also agree, but I would point out that when there is a significant coverage of a specific topic (Death of Layton) that is separate from coverage of a larger topic (Layton), then yes it demonstrates a definite level of notability. If people think there is not enough coverage just yet (I believe there is, but that is subjective), then I urge everyone people to wait and see what will happen this week-end when all media outlets in this country will be busy canonizing Layton. And saints are surely notable, aren't they? Joke aside, this is a clear cut case by all means. Let's not repeat the '2011 UK riot' AfD and countless others who have turned out to be very notable by themselves. — Charlie Echo Tango — 04:58, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
Delete per nom DoDo Bird Brain (talk) 04:45, 24 August 2011 (UTC)— DoDo Bird Brain (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
- This vote is suspicious. It shouldnt be counted
I'm sure the closing administrator will be able to assess !votes by him/herself. Care to explain why you think it is 'suspicious'? — Charlie Echo Tango — 05:01, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
No, since that would be a colossal waste of time. In fact, here, I just wasted time. Special:Contributions/DoDo_Bird_Brain If you need more explanation, forget it. Agent Vodello 14:14, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
This user needs to review wp:bite My vote is just as good as anyone elses, im assuming the user eho says my vote should not count somehow wants the page to not be deleted. DoDo Bird Brain (talk) 20:04, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
Keep. Notability is clear as this is state funeral.Wheatsing (talk) 04:55, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
Keep This article will probably be expanded after the funeral is held. 70.77.248.62 (talk) 05:14, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
Keep. Considering it's the first time the Leader of the Opposition has been given a state funeral, It is at least notable in the short term. Perhaps later it can be combined, but right now, let's keep a separate article for any more information. ^_^ ^_^ (talk) 05:59, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
Strong Keep Jack Layton is a very notable politician, in Canada. I bet if this was an American politician, Americans would strongly reject deletion of the article. This RFD is a strong reminder of the inherent American-centrism of this whole website. NorthernThunder (talk) 06:20, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

What utter bullshit. The nominator isn't even American... why do so many Canadians always blame everything on Americans? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.68.108.96 (talk) 10:07, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Keep On the grounds that the state funeral has yet to take place, it's a little unfair to comment in the notability of the article, at least postpone the discussion until after the event has taken place RandomAct 07:10, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
Keep per above causa sui (talk) 08:33, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
Keep A State Funeral is a notable, historic event. I also note that there are many other State Funeral articles on Knowledge (XXG), such as Death and state funeral of Pierre Trudeau , Death and state funeral of Ronald Reagan and State funeral of John F. Kennedy. --mwilso24 (/_Contrib) 11:34, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
Keep - state funeral of a notable politician who died at a relatively young age. It should be a big event, though this would better be judged until the events are over. – Connormah (talk) 13:35, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
Keep. Like royal weddings, the funerals of at least some national political leaders are often state occasions. This one seems to qualify, and as such it has plenty of independent sources. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 15:12, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
Keep Extremely notable event. Can't believe someone would even nominate it. -DJSasso (talk) 17:19, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
Keep per Connormah. State funeral makes it notable. Me-123567-Me (talk) 17:39, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
Keep Simply put stupid nomination. Intoronto1125 TalkContributions 18:29, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
Speedy keep per Rusted AutoParts and Paul Erik Iotha (talk) 19:23, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

The result was Speedy delete g11, ad for selfpublished book. NawlinWiki (talk) 16:50, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Brooding (Heartland Chronicles)

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

Contested PROD. Self-published novel of limited notability. No article for the author, Google search on ("Brooding: The Heartland Chronicles" "Andy Williamson") shows only 56 unique results. MikeWazowski (talk) 01:44, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Just because this is a novel that is self published should not mean that this article should be deleted. There are other articles which are much more irrelevant, and smaller. Several articles on books provide only the author's name, as well as a summery or synopsis. Nothing more. This article provides more, and it shall expand with time. There is currently a page about the author, though it looks as though it shall be deleted. However, just because there is no page about the author does not mean that a book's page can be deleted, as per Knowledge (XXG) rules and guidelines. This existence of this book as well as the author is shown in a direct link to the website of this novel. In my opinion there seems to be no reason for this page to be deleted. Broodingfan (talk) 03:10, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
Delete. Saying that there are other articles on Knowledge (XXG) that are worse than this one is generally not considered a strong argument in a deletion discussion. Furthermore, there are so many books published that Knowledge (XXG) has notability guidelines for books. For a book to be considered notable enough for a Knowledge (XXG) article, it is not enough to show that it exists. Rather, a novel of this sort would normally qualify as notable (if it does qualify) by virtue of receiving multiple published reviews (such as in newspapers and magazines) or other media coverage along those lines. Currently, this article has no sources other than links to the book's own official site. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:33, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 14:21, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

The result was delete. Sandstein 04:53, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

List of politicians with economics training

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

This is a clear violation of our rules on intersecting lists--there is nothing inherently notable in the idea of a politician having had down some sort of academic work in economics. Unless the subject of the intersection (politicians with economic training) has itself been discussed in multiple, reliable, independent sources, this list should be deleted. I would argue that any list that is of the form "People in profession X with academic training in Subject Y" is inherently non-notable unless covered in reliable sources. Qwyrxian (talk) 00:16, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Delete per WP:NOTDIR, specifically point #7 about non-encyclopedic cross-categorizations. In addition, this list is almost entirely unreferenced and woefully incomplete. This is not necessarily a reason for deletion on its own, but the omission of a politician from this list implies that he/she has no training in economics, which is a problem. There is no clear definition of what constitutes "economics training". Does that mean they need to have an advanced degree in economics, or would it suffice to have read a book on economics? I think that if you dig hard enough, you'll find that the vast majority of politicians have some sort of formal or informal training in economics (since it's part of almost every politician's job), it might be easier to create the shorter List of politicians without economics training. —SW— 03:32, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
Delete partly per Snottywong: the criteria for inclusion are so arbitrary that the list is useless. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 03:56, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 04:39, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Delete. The term "economics training" is vague and could refer to anything from an economics class in high school to Ph.D. in Economics.--Huh direction (talk) 10:22, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Delete - I concur with the above: "economics training" is such a vague phrasing that it renders the list essentially open-ended. The term "politician" is also wielded somewhat sloppily here, I think. List of American elected politicians with economics degrees would be encyclopedic; this is not. My opinion. Carrite (talk) 15:48, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

move to List of politician economists or similar. Notable as a quick encyclopaedic reference point per WP:Lists "index of articles." This is vague, i agree, so lets make it more specific. Per Carritte, since you agree a similar topic is worthwhile then why not move instead of dleteing.Lihaas (talk) 21:51, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

We can't move it to Carrite's title because that's not what this list is; it intentionally under-defines "economic training". Moving it would require going through every single entry and checking to see if they hold a degree, and thus would really be no better than deleting and starting from scratch. "List of politician economists" would only refer to those people who simultaneously are politicians and economists as a profession, and that is an extremely narrow list, possibly a non-existent one (since it would be rare for someone to simultaneously hold both jobs". As a side note, I actually think that Carrite's suggestion would also be unencyclopedic; we absolutely should not be making lists of "People in profession X with degrees in Field Y". Qwyrxian (talk) 00:32, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Delete far too vague. WP:INDISCRIMINATE. It would be impossible to verify if someone took a high school economics course and yet there's probably many politicians who have, and are very competent. Someone might go to business school and take a few courses in economics, while someone else might not. This list could easily degenerate into a platform for "my candidate is smarter than your candidate". Dzlife (talk) 13:53, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

The result was Speedy Delete FASTILY 08:20, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Gonda, Aligarh/version 2

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

Near-duplicates of Gonda, Aligarh, and I don't see anything worth merging (not that there's much worth in the original article anyways). Actually version 3 seems to be the oldest, but perhaps the worst. TimBentley (talk) 01:26, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. — Logan _Talk 01:43, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:04, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Delete Blatant duplicate / fork. North8000 (talk) 14:32, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
Delete Duplicate/fork. --Redtigerxyz 06:30, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

The result was delete. — Cirt (talk) 18:29, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

OoShirts

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

ooShirts is a run-of-the-mill Internet business that sells shirts. Little to no mention in third-party reliable sources: blogs and press releases abound, but this company hardly seems famous or notable. Jsharpminor (talk) 21:53, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Is there a rationale to this? - frankie (talk) 22:05, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

There, fixed: rationale added. Jsharpminor (talk) 22:19, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Weak Delete - for some reason it gets more than a passing mention in reliable source SF Chronicle and Inc. but I was unable to find any others. So it maybe passes Knowledge (XXG):Notability (organizations and companies) depending on your interpretation. One RS is definitely not enough they say, but I don't think this gets enough coverage to satisfy notability. Of course, it is possible that more and better sources will show up. Metal.lunchbox (talk) 22:55, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 01:25, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:25, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Weak keep. The SF Chronicle and Inc.com items are good, and while the others are too entrepreneur-related, most of them are independent, and I think there's enough of them to meet WP:GNG, albeit barely - frankie (talk) 16:02, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 00:04, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Weak delete Tiny internet company. Article is reasonably encyclopedic. The two best references are wp:notability-like, but look like a fluke. North8000 (talk) 14:28, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

The result was redirect to Xbox#Operating system. (non-admin closure) Alpha Quadrant 00:20, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Xbox Dashboard

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

Delete not WP:NOTABLE LES 953 (talk) 04:56, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Keep It's the OS keeping everything together and organized on the 360, not unlike any version of Windows, Linux kernel or OSX. No real reason for deletion presented. Nate • (chatter) 05:08, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
- The 360 Dashboard has its page: Xbox 360 system software MadCow257 (talk) 15:29, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 08:13, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Delete Lacks references to satisfy notability. Perhaps it could be merged somewhere if it satisfies verifiability. Edison (talk) 15:22, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
Redirect to Xbox#Operating system, no refs to establish independent notability. --Muchness (talk) 16:33, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 02:39, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Seconding this Redirect to Xbox#operating system. There's not enough information to justify a separate article IMHO. MyNameWasTaken (talk) 17:14, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:04, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Redirect to Xbox#operating system - While there are enough sources out there to split the article, the amount of content doesn't merit a split at the moment. It's a WP:GOODFAITH split, but without more research/references and content there just isn't enough. --Teancum (talk) 12:33, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Merge/Redirect A good few paragraphs, but should not be a separate article. North8000 (talk) 14:17, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

The result was no consensus. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:53, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Ex Norwegian

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

Fails WP:BAND Vanadus (talk | contribs) 23:09, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 01:28, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Comment: One of the criteria for WP:BAND is if they were "...a featured subject of a substantial broadcast segment across a national radio or TV network." In one of the sources for the article, it is mentioned that they played on "...Sky News channel hugely popular European show Sky Live that broadcasts their live performance to millions of people." As I don't know much about this broadcast, I will not actually vote on this submission, but someone else more familiar with it may be able to determine if this appearance fits the requirement or not. Topher385 (talk) 19:25, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
Delete only found incidental, local coverage and false positives out the yin-yang. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • 13:15, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:24, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 00:03, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Weak Keep I think that they make it (just barely) on wp:notability. North8000 (talk) 14:15, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

The result was delete. — Cirt (talk) 18:29, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Yumiko The Debut EP

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

This article has no references and notability established. There is nothing more I can say. Gh87 (talk) 06:15, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 08:14, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:03, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Delete Artist has an article in WP. Zero indication of wp:notability of the album, zero references. Zero content other than the track listing, so it should just go in the article on the artist.North8000 (talk) 12:20, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. —Michaela den (talk) 10:16, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Alpha Quadrant 23:48, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

The Diviners (play)

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

non notable play, no WP:RS can be found to satisfy the WP:GNG, no attempt to establish notability, PROD declined Jezhotwells (talk) 07:06, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. Jezhotwells (talk) 08:04, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:03, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Strong keep I found many sources, namely , and and , which could be used for the article. I'm doubt if this play is non-notable, given the fact that there are many videos on YouTube, as well as heaps of info (although most of which is non-RS) available. Sp33dyphil 04:44, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Comment: The first reference above, enotes, is about an entirely different Canadian play. The next two are regional reviews of non-professional productions. The last are notes from a college production. None of these establish notability or go anyway to meeting the WP:GNG. Jezhotwells (talk) 19:34, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Keep Zero indication of wp:notability in the article, but appears that it could be established. North8000 (talk) 12:19, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Comment: Baffling comment, what makes you think notability could be established? Jezhotwells (talk) 19:34, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

The result was delete. — Cirt (talk) 18:28, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Sunny Day

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

No sources and no established notability, even with the album image. If the article can go, so can its album art. Gh87 (talk) 06:21, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 08:14, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Delete Artist has an article in WP. Zero indication of wp:notability of the album, zero references. Zero content other than the track listing, so it should just go in the article on the artist. North8000 (talk) 14:10, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. —Michaela den (talk) 10:15, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

The result was delete. Spartaz 08:31, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Elemental (BattleTech)

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

Each of the above articles fail WP:FICT (yes, to clarify, I understand that's only an essay - they fail the GNG, and, being articles on fiction, focus solely on in-universe details without looking outwards) - no out-of-universe sourcing, and I can't find any indication that the subjects are notable outside their universe. Looks like fancruft to me. m.o.p 13:04, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. —m.o.p 13:03, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

delete units, weak keep "elemental" The individual units are not subject to enough 3rd party comment. Yes they show up in a lot of books, for reasons that doesn't indicate overall notability see my essay "sources should be out of universe". Elementals are a part of the fictional technology and have more import, because they are a reletively early example of hardsuits/powered armor/trooper suits/ect., they could be merged there or kept, or merged to a list of battletechnologies. 98.209.39.71 (talk) 01:27, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 13:50, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 13:50, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

I transwikied all of these articles previously to http://battletech.wikia.com/ where anyone who wants to find the information, can do so. Dream Focus 19:13, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Nuke Elemental to a stub or delete, Delete all of the others There's little or no encyclopedic content to worry about losing. These "articles" are basically the owners manuals / how to play instructions on these products. No real references, no indication of WP:notability, although it might be establishable for Elemental. North8000 (talk) 14:08, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
Delete all. No indication of real-world notability as established through coverage in third-party reliable sources. Sandstein 05:04, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

The result was delete. Spartaz 08:38, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Nokia E55

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

Delete not WP:NOTABLE LES 953 (talk) 15:40, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 16:38, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

merge as usual -- or at least as ought to be usual. These separate articles should never have been made in the first place, but a merge will deal with them. No argument given against a merge,. WP:Deletion policy requires considering such alternatives to deletion before coming here. DGG ( talk ) 23:54, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
Keep article looks like it is off to a good start. Non-notability not established by AfD submitter. --Kvng (talk) 16:45, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Delete or merge because pages are not WP:NOTABLE, no significant coverage - add, references to significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject into this article. Significant coverage - References that are about the subject – at least one lengthy paragraph, preferably more. Not passing mentions, directory listings, not just any old thing that happens to have the name in it. Several of them – not just one. It must be notable. Reliable sources - Something that is generally trusted to tell the truth. A major newspaper, a factual, widely-published book, high-quality mainstream publications with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. Not blogs, MySpace, Facebook, forum/Usenet posts, fansites, or Twitter. It must be verifiable. Independent - Nothing written by the subject, paid for by the subject, or affiliated with the subject. Not their website, and not a press-release. It must be independent. LES 953 (talk) 19:25, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Delete It's a frigin' model number of a cell phone. No indication of notability, zero references. North8000 (talk) 12:08, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
Delete or merge to an approtprate list, no indication of notability. Sandstein 05:02, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

The result was delete. — Cirt (talk) 18:29, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Market dynamics

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

Non-notable original research, spam. Only references are articles by the author of the entry. Previously deleted as Market Dynamics. Editor discusses issues with previous version on the talk page, but there is still no reason to think this is notable or anything more than self-promotion. Hairhorn (talk) 16:05, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 16:39, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Prior deletion was due to lack of references that were independent and peer reviewed. The submission was re-entered after such references were available (see article) from two peer reviewed journals. It seems that the notability requirements has been modified since the original submission to require a secondary source, which by current definition excludes publications by the editor which is considered the primary source.

The intent of the submission is not self-promotion as is indicated above. I believe the material is of interest and use to a wide audience.

If you believe the notability issue cannot be overcome despite of reputable peer reviewed articles, then a deletion is in order as suggested. Regards. Jdayanim (talk) 15:53, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Delete:

...a method for modeling and forecasting the price movements of traded securities and their composites.
The method further develops parallelisms with Classical Mechanics and Fluid Dynamics, such as an equivalency between price and potential energy density. These linkages enable access to an existing pool of knowledge with its potential application to the fields of finance and investment management.
The dynamics of price resembles concepts from the classical science of motion. To demonstrate this point, consider the concept of energy. Classically, Work (W) performed on an object by an external force is measured as the product of force and displacement, or for a fluid counterpart as the product of change in pressure and volume.
Patent Pending on methods detailed in this article

This page is promoting one man's theory, apparently the original author's ("Joshua F. Dayanim"). - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 15:20, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

The result was delete. Spartaz 08:40, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Oldest Afghan tribes

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

This is basically original research as it represents the editor's choice of "the oldest references associated with Afghans". The editor in question has a history of misrepresenting sources, using sources for original research, and using unreliable sources. Dougweller (talk) 18:53, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Keep. Not sure about the title but there is useful Ancient Greek content in this article and I know of ancient Greek history of Afghanistan without doing any original research. Perhaps a more appropriate title is required. Perhaps something like Ancient Greek history of Afghanistan or Ancient Greeks in Afghanistan for part of the content, or something along those lines. Nipsonanomhmata 10:23, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Afghanistan-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 14:07, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 14:07, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Comment But that would be a different article with a different subject. Dougweller (talk) 18:27, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Delete Definitely feels like original research, and is largely quotes. This is a time period which seems to be underdeveloped on the History of Afghanistan page MadCow257 (talk) 02:34, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Merge Looks like some good content, but the title itself is a POV assertion, not a wp subject. North8000 (talk) 12:01, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
Merge It can contribute to existing article like history of Afghanistan or Afghanistan Sehmeet singh Talk 16:21, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
Delete. I don't consider this good content - it's just a confusing assortment of quotes. This can be more concisely addressed in an article concerning the history of Afghanistan, but not in this form. Sandstein 04:57, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

The result was delete. — Cirt (talk) 18:30, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Abu Hubairah Basri

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

Unreferenced biographical article. Notability not verified by independent reliable sources. Inter rest (talk) 20:19, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 20:24, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 20:25, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Delete No indication of wp:notability. Zero references. North8000 (talk) 11:59, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
Delete - There doesn't seem to be any evidence that this person is notable, no mentions.SwisterTwister talk 02:10, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

The result was keep. — Cirt (talk) 18:29, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Abu Ishaq Shami

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

Notability not verified by independent reliable sources. Even if notable, it would be better to delete and start over than attempt to salvage this version. Inter rest (talk) 20:22, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 20:24, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 20:25, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Delete - I didn't see notable links on Google and Yahoo. Keep The books are enough to provide some sort of notability.SwisterTwister talk 01:13, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
Keep One of the founders of a major Sufi order. I have verified many of the statements in the article from reliable sources, and suspect that most of the rest may be verifiable too. PWilkinson (talk) 07:46, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

keep not only do the autogenerated links in this afd show a number of reliable sources for the importance of this fellow, the article itself, while poorly written, is not badly sourced as it stands. as PWilkinson says, he was one of the founders of a major and early sufi order. this definitely belongs in wp. — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 00:13, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
keep Hard to tell for sure, but looks like a notable historical figure. North8000 (talk) 11:57, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
Keep: Notable. Joe Chill (talk) 21:22, 24 August 2011 (UTC)