Knowledge

< Knowledge:Articles for deletion‎ | Log

< 10 February	12 February >

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

The result was keep. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 21:10, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

List of Songs by Mohammed Rafi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Just a list and come within WP:NOTEVERYTHING. A good and comprhensive article on Mohammed Rafi already lists notable output - this is just a directory . Also possible copy vio from  Velella  23:50, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

• Delete - this is pure and simple WP:LISTCRUFT and is admittedly incomplete. Eddie.willers (talk) 00:56, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

• Nearly every article in Knowledge is incomplete, so that can't be used as a reason to delete, and "listcruft" is nothing more than a term of abuse rather than a reasoned argument. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:13, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

• Rejoinder - I admit that the word listcruft can be used pejoratively, but this article is simply that, a list of works with no demonstration as to why they collectively merit an article of their own. Why not mention the key works in the main Mohammed Rafi article? Furthermore, I dspute your assertion that, "Nearly every article in Knowledge is incomplete" - by what definition? Eddie.willers (talk) 23:37, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

• Keep. It seems to be standard practice for major popular music stars to have complete discographies on Knowledge, and you don't get much more major than Mohammed Rafi. This bare alphabetical listing is pretty useless in itself, but could become an acceptable article if it was sorted by year and film, and even better with the addition of the composers of the songs. We don't delete articles that have potential for improvement. The Mohammed Rafi article only scratches the surface of his output. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:13, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:44, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:44, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:44, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

• Keep but merge a condensed list to Mohammed Rafi#List of Songs. --Uncle Ed (talk) 19:57, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Keep needs improvement not deletion. Shyamsunder (talk) 20:59, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

• Merge per Ed Poor. Jclemens (talk) 21:51, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
• Keep He is a very famous singer who is known worldwide. He has also sung many songs in different languages. I also agree that the article needs improvement rather than deletion. Torreslfchero (talk) 12:48, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
• Keep The logic cited for merge/ deletion apply to several other wikilist articles such as List of songs by Elvis Presley and others. The list can't be merged with originl article on Mohammed Rafi just because the sheer volume of work done by him.. I believe a separate list for his songs is justified. Improvements are welcome. ClintonSS (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 13:25, 13 February 2012 (UTC).
• Super-Duper Keep : Read reasons above. No merger required as merged page will be oversize. -Animeshkulkarni (talk) 10:45, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
• Keep. I hope those familiar with the subject matter (and List of Elvis Presley songs as well) appreciate, that, at the moment these two lists are about as encyclopedic as a list of dinners I have eaten over the last twelve months, The big difference is that these two list can be improved with reference to films, writers, year of recording, albums, recording studio, arranger, and a wealth of other information that will make each article interesting I only mention the Presley list because somebody else brought it up and it does suffer the same problems. Cheers. --Richhoncho (talk) 14:00, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
• Keep. Per above keeps.--Epeefleche (talk) 07:04, 18 February 2012 (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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete.  Sandstein  07:33, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Iran lobby in the United States (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Procedural nomination, following concerns raised about the article in email correspondence, which I've looked into and with which I concur, to a degree. I notified a number of projects and relevant talkpages about the article some months ago, but there's been very little movement since.

Summarising the correspondent's concerns: the article has significant POV issues, with excessive focus on individuals, and relies heavily on sources from involved parties. Much of the material is about Trita Parsi and the National Iranian American Council, using material previously and independently rejected in those articles; the talkpages of those articles suggest that Daioleslam and Front Page are not considered reliable sources in these contexts.

There is some usable material, and in theory, these are arguments for cleanup rather than deletion. However, there is no "good version" to revert to, and I'm not sure what a neutral version of the page could look like; it may be simplest to delete (or cut down and merge?) and reconstruct the useful material in other articles - perhaps Iran–United States relations - where it can be put in context. Suggestions welcome; as I say, this is not a field I'm very familiar with. Shimgray | talk | 23:39, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. Shimgray | talk | 23:46, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States-related deletion discussions. Shimgray | talk | 23:46, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Shimgray | talk | 23:46, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

• Strong delete. Article is clearly biased, written like a screed, and unduly implies motive on a living person. Xavexgoem (talk) 00:06, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
• Delete. In some parts it reads as an op-ed piece and there is a BLP issue as noted by Xavexgoem. S_peakF_{ree (contribs)} 14:49, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
• Keep and clean it up. Difficulty in removing bias is unrelated to the worthiness of the topic. If reliable sources indicate that an Iran lobby does exist in the US, then the topic is notable. See WP:NOTCLEANUP and probably WP:LIKELYVIOLATION. --Uncle Ed (talk) 20:02, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
• Delete - even if we disregarded or tried to clean up the BLP attacks, the POV slant, the FORK-ish nature, and the serious formatting issues, I only see a single reliable source, the FT article cited once. I don't see how this even passes WP:GNG or WP:FRINGE. Please, lobby me. Bearian (talk) 21:44, 13 February 2012 (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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Clear consensus for delete, though there were significant calls for merging. I will userfy on request, though I note that some content has already been userfied. A note of caution, in that some of the content relates to Marriage rather more than Monogamy, so if deciding to work on the material for merging, it may be worth checking the Marriage article which already contains some of the ideas and material used in Value of monogamy. SilkTork 11:40, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Value of monogamy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Rambling, incoherent essay. Seems to be full of WP:OR and WP:SYNTH to the point of being irreperable. Dubious title as well. Ten Pound Hammer • 22:42, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

• Delete as a fork of Monogamy. This essay got dropped in in 2006 and has been tweaked and twiddled since by a number of different hands. It probably should have been shut down as a fork back in the day, in my opinion. There might be mergeable content, although I rather doubt it. That would be an acceptable alternative outcome, in my view. Carrite (talk) 00:39, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
• Merge - seems to be content worth keeping. Eddie.willers (talk) 01:37, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
• Merge and Delete, if that's a possible option. There's plenty of well researched information in the article, and much of it could really be included in the existing article on Monogamy. Sionk (talk) 03:11, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
  • WP:MAD --Bmusician 01:35, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
• Merge - Usable, referenced content to Monogamy. Northamerica1000 06:39, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

• delete Not notable per gng Pass a Method talk 09:04, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:42, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:42, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

• Keep Has surmountable problems, but you haven't said why it's not a notable topic. See WP:UGLY and WP:IDONTLIKEIT. If it needs a new title, use the move tool. --Uncle Ed (talk) 20:09, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
• Delete as a content fork, quote farm and irredeemable mess requiring a complete rewrite. If anyone wants to userfy it, have at it and take anything usable to Monogamy. Yes, building a house takes time (6 years?!?! Fire the builder!). That does not mean that we substitute a blueprint for a house. The garbage currently holding the place of an article here isn't even a blueprint, it's a rough idea for a house scrawled on a napkin. - SummerPhD (talk) 02:34, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
• Delete OR, content fork. --SupernovaExplosion (talk) 06:38, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
• Userfy - this is clearly a half-baked article, but one that has pretty good potential. Just this month, Dan Savage is soliciting essaya nd comments on this issue; George Michael infamously sang of its virtues. Otherwise, a merger or redirect to save the hard work done thus far, as well as the citations. Bearian (talk) 21:50, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
• Although I am tempted to go through each of the points being made by those who have their hooks into this article and want it deleted, is it really worth my time? Is it really worth detailed lengthy specific responses on this page to "the problems"? Is it really worth it... to calmly and resolutely point of the wrongness of many of the attacks? Because, yes, it could be done... but really, is it worth it? Well, with this particular AfD I think things have become clear enough that a GENERAL criticism of the nature of the process is called for. In order not to get messy or too detailed here I've placed some thoughts including a reasonable but mildly tongue-in-cheek proposal regarding Monogamy in Christianity on my user page, where I hope to gradually develop some thoughts. See section "Do significant Knowledge biases sometimes cause deletion or exclusion of appropriate content?" Also see my somewhat tongue-in-cheek comment in Talk:Monogamy in Christianity# Merge? regarding merging that "fork" from there to here. Anyway, I think that the massive amount of energy expended on trashing stuff seems to be exceeding the positive efforts needed to advance the "presentation of the sum of human knowledge." FeatherPluma (talk) 02:53, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Actually, I'm not criticizing the content; that I think is pretty good. I think the article is just not ready for publication. I'm going to be bold and userfy it for you, OK? Bearian (talk)

• Delete - If you want to talk about the evolutionary basis of monogamy we have Monogamous pairing in animals (which is an actual subject that needs some attention) as well as Animal sexual behaviour#Monogomy and of course Monogamy. If it's not the first two it's a fork of the third. It's clearly not a notable "subject" that isn't already encompassed by the ones I just listed. Shadowjams (talk) 23:38, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

  I'd also like to point out that the poor shape this article in is a direct consequence, and a great example of the problem with having too many forks or tiny stylistic variations on the name of a single subject. The lack of focus on a single article means we have multiple not-very-good articles instead of one good or even featured article. Shadowjams (talk) 23:40, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

• Comment - I see there's already a user page at User:FeatherPluma/Value of monogamy. There seem to be work done and to be done. What do we do now? Bearian (talk) 01:05, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
• Keep Notable term, the content of which should be dealt with by cleanup, not deletion or merging. -- Trevj (talk) 03:36, 20 February 2012 (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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 21:17, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Simpli Software Inc. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

The subject of the article lacks significant coverage in reliable third party sources and fails to meet the notability guidelines for organizations. Alpha_Quadrant 22:26, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:40, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:40, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

• Speedy delete; this article currently fails to make a claim of minimal importance. Full text: Simpli Software Inc. provides software development services for Windows, Unix and Mac OS platforms. It developed the popular hard disc benchmark HD Tach. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 16:23, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Unfortunately, CSD A7 does not apply to software. --Bmusician 01:36, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
• Speedy delete per WP:SPEEDY#G11: unambiguous advertising or promotion. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 01:07, 14 February 2012 (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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedy Delete per WP:G12 -- internet archive shows text was copyrighted prior to Knowledge creation in 2010. — CactusWriter 23:53, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Pennsylvania Land Trust Association (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Purely promotional text. The organization may be notable; however, in this case the article needs to be totally rewritten and it would be better to be done from the scratch. It includes also large parts of copy-pasted text without clear indication of having copyrights for this. Beagel (talk) 21:43, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:39, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

• Speedy delete as a copyvio of http://conservationtools.org/about and pages under http://conservationtools.org/guides. Article so tagged. Goodvac (talk) 23:29, 12 February 2012 (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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Rlendog (talk) 21:46, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

His Great Reverence (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Article about a title that doesn't appear to be notable. The two references are to obscure uses of similar phrases in non-English languages. There is no evidence this phrase is used in English. There are no sources providing significant coverage about the use of this title. The claims that this is recently used are unsourced and may even be a hoax. The article was proded, but was contested without explanation, so bringing here for discussion. Sparthorse (talk) 21:29, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

• Delete - someone is showing a poor understanding of grammar by the use of the cited sources. Both appear to use the phrase 'great reverence' in its meaning of 'respect' - see Dictionary entry. Eddie.willers (talk) 22:17, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
• Delete as hoax. Cusop Dingle (talk) 22:39, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
• Delete - Appears to be a hoax. -- Joaquin008 13:16, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
• Delete - partly a hoax and partly just lack of understanding. -- Ehrenkater (talk) 15:15, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:39, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

• Obvious delete Shadowjams (talk) 23:42, 15 February 2012 (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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 21:23, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Jānis Daudzvārdis (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

I do not think this chess player is notable. He does not seem to hold the FIDE grandmaster title, and he has not won a national championship. SyG (talk) 17:10, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:45, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

This article is related to the article "Latvian Chess Championship", the chess player associated with the victory of Latvian chess championship or additional match for champion title. Please leave this article, because otherwise the article "Latvian Chess Championship" will be a link without the article. Jānis Daudzvārdis is played additional match for Latvian champion title.--Uldis s (talk) 08:48, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

---

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Armbrust, B.Ed. _{about my edits?} 12:23, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

---

• Delete - he has not participated in a 'major international amateur or professional competition at the highest level' so doesn't meet WP:NSPORT. Sionk (talk) 17:02, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Additional match for Latvian championship is the major professional competition. E.g., GM Shirov or GM Shabalov not won in Latvian Chess Championship or not played in additional match for the title.--Uldis s (talk) 08:52, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

---

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Armbrust, B.Ed. _{about my edits?} 14:38, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

---

• Delete - The article makes only modest claims to his notability. Our normal yardstick is GM or IM with a notable sideline. National champion status would also be worth considering, but he falls short on this count too. Brittle heaven (talk) 09:49, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
• Delete --Edgars2007 (Talk/Contributions) 12:19, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
• Note: Not properly transcluded. — Train2104 (talk • contribs) 20:57, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
• Delete The guy has not won ANY international titles. He is not even a FIDE Master, let alone an International Master. And as noted, he would have to be at least a GM to make it in by that alone. Also, Daudzvardis never did well in the actual Latvian Championships; he finished well in the Latvian OPEN in 1992, but that's completely different. I've seen this confusion on a few pages and recently edited on Daudzvardis's page.ChessPlayerLev (talk) 19:47, 19 February 2012 (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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Keep. Non-admin closure. --Michaelzeng7 (talk - contribs) 22:39, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

• Just saying to prevent inquiry in the future, the actual result of this nomination was withdrawn. I was new to AfD at the time, so I didn't know about this closing option. --Michaelzeng7 (talk - contribs) 22:49, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

List of Guardians of Ga'Hoole characters (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Entire article is in-universe. There are no references. However, the list of characters is to a notable book series. I'm nominating it for deletion in accordance with WP:FICT, but I may be wrong. Please give a consensus so I can learn. Thanks! -Michaelzeng7 (talk - contribs) 20:43, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:34, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:35, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:35, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

• Keep Lists are preferable to individual character articles, and notable fictional franchises are typically allotted one such list. Since these characters overlap between books and movie, neither is a good merge target. Primary sourcing to meet V can be easily established, and I suspect the major characters have received some RS coverage in reviews. Jclemens (talk) 21:36, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
  • There are no references in the article. And primary sourcing would be the books themselves, obviously. In book reviews, they can be reliable, but they can not be. What doesn't make sense to me is why source anything that isn't factual in the first place? The entire article is fictional. One would usually consider WP:MOSFICT, and write the character list from a real-world perspective. Something that is very difficult to do. --Michaelzeng7 (talk - contribs) 22:04, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
    • What other character lists have you compared with? It sounds like you're looking at this in a vacuum, rather than seeing about how these sorts of problems have been handled in ohter instances? Jclemens (talk) 22:15, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
      • A worthy argument. I can't help but notice Lists of characters in a fictional work. If you notice, most of the articles there have no summaries about the character. They are just lists. However, a lot of them also do have summaries. I believe the best choice is to let this one sit close with the others. I'm closing this discussion. ---Michaelzeng7 (talk - contribs) 22:39, 12 February 2012 (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 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. Clear keep. I would advise User:Alan Liefting to read WP:BEFORE, which he failed to have done in many of his nominations for deletion. (non-admin closure) Bmusician 01:40, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

The Mirage (novel) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

• Delete. Fails WP:BK. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 20:29, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
• Strong keep Does not fail WP:BK. Has been reviewed by Kirkus, Publishers Weekly (starred review), the Seattle Times, L.A. Times and others. And the author's body of work is widely reviewed, critically praised and has won or been nominated for several awards. The article needs some additions and improvements, for sure, but it seems like an obvious keeper.--ShelfSkewed Talk 21:49, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
• Keep. I added everything in and it looks like it fits what's needed at this point in time.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 04:16, 12 February 2012 (UTC)tokyogirl79
• Keep per Tokyogirl79. -- Joaquin008 13:17, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:34, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

• Keep and trout Examining the history of the article shows that the nominator first attempted to redirect the stub to the author, and then nominated it for deletion less then one hour after its creation. The article now has four separate independent, non-trivial RS'es, clearly meeting both GNG and WP:BK. This is what WP:BEFORE is specifically designed to prevent, and our overzealous NPP has done a disservice to the stub and the author who created it. Jclemens (talk) 04:23, 13 February 2012 (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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Rlendog (talk) 21:40, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

TLC Legacy: Volume One (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Putting article up for deletion due to lack of sources and articles about it online. I suspect a false article. MaJic (comments go here) 19:59, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

• Delete - still violates WP:CRYSTAL though - the release hasn't happened yet. Eddie.willers (talk) 22:26, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
• Delete. I can't find anything about an upcoming compilation set for TLC under any sort of name, let alone under TLC Legacy. I'm also a little skeptical about the fact that we have an album cover uploaded onto Knowledge but there's not even a whisper of a rumor anywhere. I'm thinking that this is something fan created, to be honest.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 04:31, 12 February 2012 (UTC)tokyogirl79
• Delete per above. -- Joaquin008 13:18, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:33, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

• Delete. I share the concerns about this subject's legitimacy (WP:HOAX?); I can find no significant coverage in reliable sources - so it does not appear to meet WP:GNG or WP:NALBUM.  Gongshow  02:00, 13 February 2012 (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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Rlendog (talk) 21:37, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

TLC Legacy: Volume Two (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Putting article up for deletion due to lack of sources and articles about it online. I suspect a false article. MaJic (comments go here) 19:59, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

• Delete - Google searching only returns WP as source. WP:CRYSTAL violation as release hasn't happened, yet. Eddie.willers (talk) 22:30, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
• Delete. I can't find anything about an upcoming compilation set for TLC under any sort of name, let alone under TLC Legacy. I'm also a little skeptical about the fact that we have an album cover uploaded onto Knowledge but there's not even a whisper of a rumor anywhere. I'm thinking that this is something fan created, to be honest.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 04:31, 12 February 2012 (UTC)tokyogirl79
• Delete per above. -- Joaquin008 13:19, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:32, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

• Delete. I share the concerns about this subject's legitimacy (WP:HOAX?); I can find no significant coverage in reliable sources - so it does not appear to meet WP:GNG or WP:NALBUM.  Gongshow  02:00, 13 February 2012 (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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. No assertion or evidence of notability. We don't have articles on everything - our inclusion crieria is that something needs to be "notable". That there is no information available is why we delete articles. SilkTork 12:21, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Elikon-35CM (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

• Delete. Non-notable product. The article states "It is difficult to find redeeming qualities in this camera." This about sums up the reason for the AfD! -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 18:59, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

• Keep. Since when has something needed to be 'notable' to be included in an encyclopedia? Half of Knowledge would disappear, if that was a criteria...

Even if so - there has still been made about 128.000 of these rather poor cameras, and there is hardly any information on the Internet about them. So where else are people going to find data? Anybody unhappy with the contents? Feel free to edit! :) Kim_Pirat (talk) 19:46, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

• WP has notability guidelines to restrict the articles to a certain subset of "the sum of human knowledge" to make the project more managable. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 20:37, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
• Delete as per Alan Liefting. Just because there seems to be few/no other internet-based sources of info on this product doesn't mean that WP has to carry a torch for it. Product is of questionable notability. Eddie.willers (talk) 22:33, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:53, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

• Delete - I can find no significant coverage about this entry level camera in independent reliable sources. -- Whpq (talk) 17:07, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

• Hm. Looks like i'm a minority here... May i please explain?
  

I collect cameras, and for me, this camera is interesting. Not for extraordinary craftmanship, interesting production, technological achievements etc., but for the extraordinary... plainness.
Most people did (and do) not have Leica's, Hasselblad, Contax' and other wonderful cameras. The blurred pics from somebody's vacation, the newborn baby, the long-dead grandma... most ordinary people's "Kodak moment" has happened with plain, unassuming and poor cameras. The pictures have been badly exposed, and rarely very artful. But it is these plain, ignored cameras, that filled most people's photo albums.
Yes, they are not interesting. Yes, it is difficult to find reliable information. And yes, this is exactly the same problem if we want to find out how ordinary people lived, worked and died in medievil days. It is completely documented to the smallest detail how the noblesse were doing, but find info on the guy tending the stables? Impossible.
That is why i find this cheap, old, USSR P.O.S. interesting. And i don't know where else to preserve the poor scraps of information about it.
'Interesting' is very much in the eye of the beholder. I find that the endless list of ancient hymns, as well as Every Air Crash In The World, that some people write about (and that regularely decorate the front page) deeply uninteresting. But i will not suggest any of that for deletion, no matter how boring i find it, because i know that for somebody else, this is the most interesting thing in the world...
I better shut up now. I've said more than my part. Thanks for reading, and God bless y'all! Kim_Pirat (talk) 16:01, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

• • Comment - If your concern is keeping this information somewhere, there are lots of alternatives to Knowledge. There are a multitude of places to create a free web site. There is also Wikia where somebody has created Camerapedia which sounds like a spot that you may want to consider. -- Whpq (talk) 16:09, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
• Keep Probably meets WP:GNG. I've added a couple of refs, and suspect there are further ones available offline. -- Trevj (talk) 04:11, 20 February 2012 (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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge to Death and state funeral of King Hussein. Consensus is to keep as part of Hussein_of_Jordan#Death or convert the material into an article on the funeral of King Hussein. However, we already have Death and state funeral of King Hussein, so the contents should be merged there. SilkTork 13:18, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

List of attendees to King Hussein funeral (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Exhaustive lists of state funeral attendees tend to fall under WP:NOONECARES, although if forced to point to an actual policy to argue for deletion, I'd go with WP:NOTSTATS. There may be scope for expansion at Hussein_of_Jordan#Death (perhaps on the Reagan model), but this does strike me as overkill. - Biruitorul 18:50, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

• Delete as per Biruitorul. Seems hard to justify this under WP:NOTSTATS when funerals of far greater notability only give a brief summary of worthy mourners, eg: Princess Diana. Eddie.willers (talk) 22:37, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

• Comment. I have as yet formed no opinion about the disposition of this article, but must say that I see no foundation to the claim that a Jordanian king's funeral is any less notable than that of a British princess. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:13, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

• That slightly confuses the issue. We have a bunch of articles on state funerals, but aside from List of dignitaries at the state funeral of John F. Kennedy (which I'm not sure we need), no standalone list of dignitaries, merely a summary of attendees within the funeral articles. It's possible we should have a Death and state funeral of Hussein of Jordan. It's more difficult to argue for a list like this one. - Biruitorul 20:54, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

• I appreciate your input on this however let me clear few things; considering this article under WP:NOONECARES and WP:NOTSTATS is maybe valid to you but trust me there is a history need for it due to the size and importance of the funeral. The funeral was in size similar (perhaps greater) to Mahatma Ghandi, Yitzhak Rabin, Lady Diana. It was the gathering of enemies (officials from Israel, Syria, Palestine, USA, Iraq, Kuwait...etc). It is enough to state that four American presidents attended the funeral. There was so much confusion and lack of information on who attended the funeral on the internet and press on the past therefore I decided to gather the information from every possible source including national news agencies on the day of the funeral to list this for the record of history.I will indeed support this with resources. By the way, Princess Diana is a great person, I like her however there is no way to compare the funeral of King Hussein and Lady Diana in terms of political importance and history eras. You should read more history books on the subject....

I see your points, thanks. Asrefaei (talk) 06:07, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:52, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

• Keep or change to Funeral of King Hussein As for notability, I think it is certainly as notable (arguably more) on the world stage as the Funeral of Diana, Princess of Wales. The references cited point to these people being present, but should be added inline to each name that is listed. The article may also be helped by expanding it to be about the funeral itself, (perhaps renaming it Funeral of King Hussein) along with a list of notable attendees, rather than set up just as a list. That all of these people attended, along with 800,00 others is notable as is that it brought together enemies and players from all sides of the political and cultural spectrum. I found lots of information at google books that support what user Asrefaei stated above, including these: "King Hussein's funeral brought together enemies, including the leader of the Democratic Front for the Liberation of Palestine, Nayef Hawatmeh, who approached the Israeli President Ezer Weizman, praised him as a man of peace and shook his hand... Syrian President Hafaz Al Assad and Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, harsh enemies, did not meet personally during the funeral, but it was the very first time that they came together in the same place." -Prehistoric Europe, Theory and Practice, ed. by Andrew Jones, and "Present at King Hussein's funeral were more than 40 heads of state from around the world, including all the big names; Clinton, Yeltsin et al. Indeed the roll-call surpassed even that for the funeral of Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin following his assassination in 1995, both in terms of numbers and importance." -Jordan Handbook, by Ivan Manheim --MLKLewis (talk) 21:42, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

• Thanks to all, I see your valid points, I believe I should remake/rename this article to be of the funeral itself..I will firstly finish the list as it takes a real time, I will support it with resources and finally write the article. Thanks again for your support....Please help editing whatever you think is required to be edited--Asrefaei (talk)

• Keep per MLKLewis. The nom smacks of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Bearian (talk) 21:52, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
• Keep. Sufficient RS coverage -- which also shows that someone cares, though that is besides the point.--Epeefleche (talk) 23:48, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
• Merge Cut out the pictures, change in a nice list and it will fit in the article of King Hussein. Night of the Big Wind _talk 03:24, 20 February 2012 (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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. It's fairly clear, and especially clear from one user's transition from Strong Keep to Delete, that WP:NOTNEWS is the issue here. As pointed out in the discussion, none of the sources are from more than three days after the event. Black Kite (talk) 19:16, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

American Airlines Flight 1561 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Non notable hijacking. WP:NOTNEWS applies. William 18:03, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. -William 18:06, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. -William 18:06, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. -William 18:06, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
• Keep - has recieved coverage beyond the incident itself. NOTNEWS? then why do wikipedia as a ITN section?--BabbaQ (talk) 18:23, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
• Strong Keep - The article is referenced by many dead links. But some of the healthy ones still show very strong notability. When you say this is in accordance with WP:NOTNEWS, I don't see how it reads like a newspaper in the article. Can you please tell why you may think this is non-notable? --Michaelzeng7 (talk - contribs) 20:53, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

• WP:NOTNEWSPAPER has nothing to do with "reading like a newspaper". It has to do with a lack of persistent significance of the incident. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:29, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

• That's a whole 'nother section in the book besides WP:NOTNEWS, your trying to say moreover WP:PERSISTENCE. Which, now that I think of it makes more sense that WP:NOTNEWS. They are not the same thing, which is what I perceive you are saying, but let me say this, WP:NOTNEWS does have something to do with reading like a newspaper. Hence the name. ---Michaelzeng7 (talk - contribs) 23:57, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

• Delete - fails WP:PERSISTENCE; he came, he attempted his hijack, he was hauled off to jail, nothing changed as a result of the incident and it was forgotten a week later by everyone but the lawyers. Fails WP:AIRCRASH, WP:GNG. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:29, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
• Weak Keep - needs cleanup on the sources. Eddie.willers (talk) 22:39, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
• Keep meets WP:GNG; once notable always notable as WP:N, notability is not transitory. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 20:02, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
  • But notability is cautioned by WP:NOTNEWSPAPER and WP:PERSISTENCE. An initial "spurt" of news reports, expecially in today's digital age of instant communications, does not automatically confer notability. The event discussed by this article was never notable under the WP:GNG. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:23, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
    • We shouldn't delete this perfectly fine article. It's about an attempted hijacking by a possible terrorist act to the US. A very interesting subject indeed. Someone researching this would want to come here. WP:PERSISTENCE should count to things like a specific prank phone call, it may be news at first, but not later, and this policy would count. But for something like an attempted terrorist attack? WP:IGNORE should apply. ---Michaelzeng7 (talk - contribs) 01:54, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
      • So it should be kept because WP:ITSUSEFUL? - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 10:22, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
        • Well, Knowledge is an encyclopedia. Readers of the encyclopedia come and research things they want to know about. Say they heard about this one attempted hijacking their aunt was on and they would come to Knowledge to search for this specific flight, only to find it was deleted because everyone else forgot about it. Makes no sense. ---Michaelzeng7 (talk - contribs) 21:54, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
          • By that standard, the fact Aunt May wrecked her car on the way home from Wal-Mart because she tried to text and drive is notable and deserves an article. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:31, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
• Comment: Regardless of whether this article meets WP:GNG on its own, the event seems to be notable enough that if it is decided to delete it, some content from this article should be kept somewhere. I propose that if this article is deleted, some content should be moved into either Islamic extremism in the United States or Death of Osama bin Laden. - Jorgath (talk) 05:23, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
• Merge to List of aircraft hijackings At this moment it fails WP:Persistence. The majority of the text can be trimmed as it is simple narration, which, while sourced, really isn't that notable. Only the few main points need to stay. Ravendrop 06:06, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
  • WP:PERSISTENCE is for things like a housefire. A housefire may make the news one day, but it won't make news forever (with a few exceptions of course), this would fail WP:PERSISTENCE. But for something like an attempted act of terrorism may not meet WP:PERSISTENCE, but it should still be included. ---Michaelzeng7 (talk - contribs) 19:39, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
    • I simply fail to understand or agree with your reasoning. (And I see nothing that says that an attempted terrorist act is exempted from persistence). Hence, why my vote is contrary to your opinion. Ravendrop 20:39, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
      • My reasoning is this: if someone who wants to research more about this one attempted hijacking they had heard about, they may go to Knowledge. However, the article about the hijacking was deleted, because the news about it wasn't persistent. Makes no sense. This is an encyclopedia, it is for people to come and research. What a good example for deletion from WP:PERSISTENCE is this one car crash that no one except family or lawyers know about. American Airlines Flight 1561 is different, it was an attempted terrorist act, succeeded or failed, terrorist acts are very serious and should meet WP:N. If it doesn't, WP:IGNORE it. ---Michaelzeng7 (talk - contribs) 21:07, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
        • WP:PERSISTENCE applies to everything. If an event does not have persistent coverage, it is not notable. This is an encyclopedia, and therefore we need to write on encyclopedic topics. Knowledge does not decide whether a WP:EVENT is notable or not; third-party sources do. And the third-party sources here to not establish notability any more than they would for the opening of the Podunkville Farmer's Market featuring Lower Bazoulistan's Largest Tomato - it gets a lot of press at the time, but... - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:31, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
          • OK, its starting to make sense now. Delete per The Bushranger. ---Michaelzeng7 (talk - contribs) 23:35, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
• Delete - Firstly, the narrative is conflicting and makes little sense.

"Rageh Ahmed Mohammed Al-Murisi (also spelled Rageh Almurisi), allegedly rushed toward the front of the cabin yelling "Allahu Akbar" and attempted to break into the cockpit. On al-Murisi's initial attempt to open the cockpit door, a flight attendant assumed he was looking for a restroom, and directed him to one. After Al-Murisi was informed a second time that the cockpit was not a lavatory, he made eye contact with the crew member, lowered his shoulder, and began ramming the cockpit door."

Rageh Almurisi may have been passionate and foolishly impulsive, or tired and emotional and overconfident about the ability of his shoulder ... but a terrorist?

Deserved a mention in Wikinews but didn't. On the same day a 'security threat' leading to a Delta airlines flight being diverted to New Mexico was mentioned in Wikinews , but did not gain a Knowledge article.

The article in dispute should be best described as a superficial incident of no particular consequence, so WP:NOTNEWSPAPER and only temporally notable - WP:NTEMP, and therefore fails WP:PERSISTENCE.

- Cablehorn (talk) 04:58, 19 February 2012 (UTC) → Amended - Cablehorn (talk) 02:04, 20 February 2012 (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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to League of Militant Atheists. A few editors also favor adding hatnote there, but not enough discussion here for there to be a consensus either way on that issue in the course of this AfD. But that can be discussed further on the relevant talk page.Rlendog (talk) 21:32, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Militant atheism (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Fails WP:DAB. The only entry that should possibly exist is the League of Militant Atheists. The other two are improper per MOS:DABENTRY. You can't have a disambig page for one entry. This page is unnecessary and inherently problematic. See current dispute. Bbb23 (talk) 17:58, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

• Keep and resolve the issues If there is only one entry "that should possibly exist", then this should be a redirect (but frankly I'm not sure that is the case). Deletion is not a substitute for resolving the issues that surround this article. Cusop Dingle (talk) 18:06, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

• Comment Please see the proposal (and my bold move) on the talk page. I believe this may solve some of the issues we've been having without the neutrality concerns. If the proposal sticks (I don't forsee any reason it wouldn't), then this AfD won't be useful. Thanks.   — Jess· Δ♥ 18:10, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

I'll leave this in place for a day or two, depending on activity on the article. If your change "sticks", I'll withdraw it. Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:52, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Based on the comments below, I've reconsidered. I agree with the redirect to League of Militant Atheists. To have a redirect to Atheism makes little sense, putting aside whether a disambig page for atheism is needed at all.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:24, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

• Comment. I see no reason to have a disambiguation page on atheism at all, as this runs afoul of WP:DABCONCEPT (all the topics on the page being types of atheism, and not entirely distinct concepts). If Militant atheism is to redirect anywhere, it should probably just redirect to Atheism, with some comment in that article about perceptions of militancy/aggressiveness, or possibly about epithets used against atheism and atheists. bd2412 T 20:28, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment: The other alternative would be a redirect to League of militant atheists, since we appear to have a number of sources using the term around that area and period, but fairly sparsely outside. I don't know if directing Militant Atheism to Atheism would be most appropriate. This comment shouldn't be construed as support for (or opposition to) deleting the disambig. Either way, AfD probably isn't the best solution.   — Jess· Δ♥ 20:39, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
    • I would not be opposed to the proposed redirect to League of Militant Atheists either. However, I think we should not lose sight of the fact that at least some people will come to Knowledge to look up "militant atheism" and will expect to find an article on something other than the obscure organization to which we now propose to redirect the term. bd2412 T 22:22, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
      • That's true. I think a reasonable solution could be a hatnote at the top of the League page. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:28, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
        • Robofish has proposed a hatnote pointing to Antireligion, which I think is sensible. bd2412 T 00:04, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
          • What is the policies regarding the inclusion of derogatory terms as redirects? --Saddhiyama (talk) 10:17, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
            • I would say the key policies would be WP:NOTCENSORED and WP:Redirect#Neutrality of redirects. Many of these terms are not redirects because Knowledge has articles on the terms themselves. bd2412 T 14:33, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
• Strong Oppose Over one hundred sources discussed state atheism as a form of militant atheism (please see the former article). The RfC held this past fall (which I opposed) determined that militant atheism would serve as a disambiguation page for state atheism and New atheism with the said reason being "in order to avoid conflating the forms of militant atheism (since the term militant atheism may refer to either of these terms)." Militant atheism has been well defined by several philosophers, as demonstrated in the former article's "Concepts" section. The academic term militant atheism is notable and several scholarly sources substantiate this fact (see the "References" section). As such, the disambiguation page should be reinstated, or the former "Concepts" section should take its place at militant atheism. I hope this helps. With regards, Anupam 21:10, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
• Redirect as suggested to League of militant atheists - Youreallycan 23:00, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
• Redirect to League of Militant Atheists.--В и к и T 23:21, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
• Redirect to League of Militant Atheists. Originally, the page was a POV fork, and it was changed to a DAB to try to avoid the issues that the full article created. But it clearly has become a magnet for edit warring over a term that is used by critics of New Atheism as a way to bash it. Let's kill this POV-motivated edit warring and move on. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:16, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
• Redirect to League of Militant Atheists. This looks logical. Abhishikt (talk) 01:10, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
• Redirect to League of Militant Atheists per Tryptofish's rationale; I'm persuaded that would best resolve the POV-motivated editing problems that erupted here. AzureCitizen (talk) 02:30, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:51, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

• Redirect to League of Militant Atheists - yes, that's an excellent solution. That really is the only place where the term "militant atheism/t" has any attested validity. All the rest – whether it's state atheism, new atheism or Richard Dawkins – amounts to little more than the use of the term as a slur. SNALWIBMA ( talk - contribs ) 09:20, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
• Redirect to League of Militant Atheists per all the arguments above. This will help clear up the hierarchy in various articles related to the main article on Atheism/Atheist. Mathsci (talk) 10:13, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
• Redirect to League of Militant Atheists. Good solution to an article that for years has only been a coatrack of various more or less unrelated misunderstandings and misinterpretations. --Saddhiyama (talk) 12:13, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
• Redirect to League of Militant Atheists seems to be the solution here. -- Joaquin008 13:20, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
• Comment - While I agree that League of Militant Atheists is the most logical target, I would suggest adding a hatnote to that article linking to Antireligion, which is often loosely referred to as 'militant atheism'. Yes, it's a pejorative use, but if we keep this search term at all we ought to recognise that some people use it pejoratively. Robofish (talk) 14:26, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
• Redirect to League of Militant Atheists. I would support adding a hatnote to Antireligion or New Atheism in the article, but that's an independent editorial decision. --He to Hecuba (talk) 16:07, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
• Redirect to League of Militant Atheists. The derogatory version of the term militant atheist is just as worthy of a redirect as fine dining is. Binksternet (talk) 19:44, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
• Redirect to League of Militant Atheists. Militant atheism as it currently exists is not a valid article. It serves as a device to allow anti-atheist activists to advance a particular agenda. --Lustywench (talk) 21:12, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
• Redirect to League of Militant Atheists. I agree with Lustywench's comment and note that Anupam moved the earlier content of the page to Conservapedia where (and I quote from ANI) "anti-atheist Conservapedia administrator made it article of the month for December". Dougweller (talk) 21:44, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
• The strong consensus appears to be for a redirect. Bearian (talk) 22:00, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
• Delete it's ambiguous where the redirect should go, as I doubt most people are looking for League of Militant Atheists. The more "likely" targets also happen to be very POV. 169.231.52.243 (talk) 02:57, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
• Redirect to League of Militant Atheists. As with 169 I admit I'm not sure whether people searching for the term are searching for the redirect target. But I'm reluctant to support a disambig page linking to articles where the term is not discussed. (And I think having absolutely no redirect isn't ideal when there is one possible meaning for the term as established in our articles.) While it's not always strictly required a term be discussed in the disambig target it generally should be obvious why there is a link to the corresponding article in the corresponding article which I'm not convinced there is in this case. Of course if discussion or mention of the term can be justified in the other targets then I'm fine with a disambig, but that should be discussed in the other article talk page/s. As for comments about the previous recent RFC, if people have concerns participants aren't aware of this new discussion, it would IMO be acceptable to notify all participants (except those who have already commented or who are banned) provided it's done in a neutral way. However if anyone desires to do this, I suggest they discuss it in the talk page first to ensure their notification is neutrally worded etc. Nil Einne (talk) 14:03, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
• Weak oppose I thought the version of was NPOV but it may fall afoul of the above mentioned disambiguation rules. IRWolfie- (talk) 15:38, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

As per Fine dining argument it seems unsuitable to base a disambig solely on the intended meaning and the perjorative use of the word. IRWolfie- (talk) 18:52, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

• Redirect to League of Militant Atheists, or delete. I'm tired of pov-forks and synthesis and coatracking and edit-warring. Let's get rid of it - and free up some resources to fix other articles. bobrayner (talk) 02:18, 15 February 2012 (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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Closed as article speedy deleted. Peridon (talk) 17:26, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Rapper manny (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

LongLiveMusic (talk) 16:44, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

• Delete No indication of wp:notability, no sources. Not even written as an article. Written like a conversation by an insider. North8000 (talk) 17:22, 11 February 2012 (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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. There is clear consensus that this is not appropriate main-space content for the encyclopedia. If regularly updated (an important proviso), it could be a useful maintenance aid, and I would consider userfying to WP-space if a WikiProject were interested in maintaining it; but as Alan Liefting points out (in the last-but-one comment of the debate) there are tools and bots that can do the same job and keep the tables up to date automatically. JohnCD (talk) 17:43, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

List of the most famous and infamous people of the American Old West (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

This article has no sourced, because it is 100% original research. It ranks people based on the number of page views of their WP article. It sets arbitrary criteria (which is fine in a research project, not fine for a WP article). The concept of "people from category X whose Knowledge pages get lots of views" is fundamentally unencyclopedic, and unambiguously violates WP:OR. Qwyrxian (talk) 15:45, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

• DeleteThis is pure original and irrelevant research. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 15:52, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
  • ';Retain. This article is far more significant than many trivial lists on Knowledge. There are several lists of important/prominent/famous/infamous people on Knowledge that derive from a single source or a single individual's opinion. If those articles are allowed to exist, why not this one? And the article has a source -- the page view statistics for Knowledge. Why are not those statistics not as valid as, say, the statistics generated for book sales by a publisher? Do not our statistics on the sales of Gone with the Wind come from a single source? The publisher.
  • "Fundamentally unencylopedic, you say!!" Knowledge has articles about every character who ever appeared in a comic book, every actor who ever spoke a line in a forgotten movie. You're telling me that a ranked list of the most prominent individuals in the American Old West with data deriving from the users of one of the top ten web sites -- Knowledge -- in the world is not notable?
  • I've given you a good and significant list that may help editors, writers, and Knowledge users evaluate the relative importance of a number of individuals important in the history of the American Old West. I've written or contributed to hundreds of Knowledge articles. I've never had the notability of an article challenged before. I believe I am owed a bit more courtesy. Smallchief (talk) 16:21, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

    Not the point. It's more of a category listing. I've written or contributed to at least a couple thousand wikipedia articles, and lost a few deletion discussions. This happens all the time. Don't be too upset, this is pretty common. Montanabw 01:18, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

    • Comment it's still original research. As such it needs to go.. Courtesy doesn't come into this one way or the other. A deletion discussion is a courteous way of reaching a consensus. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 16:24, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
      • Perhaps you should review Knowledge guidelines on courtesy? Smallchief (talk) 19:02, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
        • Perhaps you might look at what is Original Research. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 20:04, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
• Comment It IS interesting and useful. North8000 (talk) 17:27, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Thank you. Smallchief (talk) 18:51, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
• Delete Pure WP:OR. WP page rankings do not equate to notabilty. Lugnuts (talk) 17:35, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
• Delete as impossible to sustain. Cusop Dingle (talk) 18:07, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
• Snowball delete, title is inherent OR. Ten Pound Hammer • 18:40, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Your concern could be met by re-titling the article, List of the most prominent people in the American Old West as measured by Knowledge Users. What would be different about that title than a list of 100 most important people as determined by Time Magazine. Smallchief (talk) 18:51, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
• Userfy. Totally unsuitable for an article but WikiProject Wild West might be interested. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 19:19, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Interesting indeed! Dennis Brown (talk) 21:02, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

I would point out that the following lists cite no sources: List of Western lawmen; List of Old West gunfighters; List of cowboys and cowgirls How do we know that these lists are authoritative? Unbiased? Why don't we demand their deletion because they cite no sources and thus may not be neutral in tone and content? Smallchief (talk) 19:38, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

• Delete utter waste of bandwidth, wikipedia is not a source for itself. This is a list of page hits, nothing more. Should be made into some sort of statistics page for the wikiproject Montanabw 19:49, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Allow me to use this opportunity to turn down your invitation to join the Montana Working Group. Smallchief (talk) 21:48, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
    • I've had articles deleted myself if I could not fix them, no big deal, the comments here are well-taken. This isn't a personal thing. But sorry I said "waste of bandwidth." That was a bit rude, I'm sorry I said that. Montanabw 01:18, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
      • You've reaffirmed my faith in Montanans. ;) Smallchief (talk) 11:53, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
• Snowball Delete This is the very definition of WP:OR. It would be a dangerous precedent to allow articles that were simply lists of internal hit counts. Where would it end? --Loonymonkey (talk) 20:10, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Should have a speedy for this sort of stuff. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 20:57, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
• Delete or userfy It is interesting, I don't question that, but it is also original research that honestly shouldn't have any academic credibility outside of here. It is basically a "what wikipedians are clicking on page", which isn't encyclopedic. I might visit a website that had interesting stuff like this, even bookmark it, but that doesn't make it encyclopedia material. Sorry Smallchief. I know your heart is in the right place, but that isn't enough to keep. Dennis Brown (talk) 21:00, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Well, I take your opinion as definitive. I would comment, however, (I just looked it up) that the fifth pillar of Knowledge is that "there are no rules." and that "exceptions should be made." I would maintain there is nothing objectionable about this article, nothing biased, and that it is essentially harmless, and possibly even useful. Original research? That's a compliment. All I did was tote up some numbers. I do more original research than that when I make up a grocery list.

I believe that this article has some minor significance -- and does no harm. It is an objective attempt, using Knowledge statistics, to assign an order of importance on a class of people (Old West types). I find it highly interesting that Jesse James has more readership than Custer or Sitting Bull or Jim Bridger (who to my surprise didn't make it into the 10,000 hits a month elite.) I found it highly interesting that Wyatt Earp's consort (and later wife) makes the list. If fame and Knowledge hits don't constitute sufficient reason to have an article, why are there articles about every baseball player who came to bat in the major leagues over the last 150 years, every musician in every band that ever made a record, and every actor who ever appeared on the silver screen? In other words, I believe that this article has been unjustly judged and I am thoroughly irritated by the sniping and skin-deep analysis of many of the critics.

However, it would seem that the bureaucrats of Knowledge would rather enforce narrow rules (which don't exist according the the pillars of Knowledge) and be lost at sea (and given the anniversary, to go down with the Titanic) about the relative importance of subjects. They thus might heartily approve of a 100,000 byte article about someone who played saxophone in a fourth of July parade rather than attempt to seek some sort of objective criteria about what might be important and what is not so important.

My article was a modest and preliminary attempt to find criteria in which notability and importance of people could be assessed. As such, I was merely following another of the five pillars of Wikipeda. "Be bold." Obviously, my "boldness" does not win favor in the bureaucracy. I should have known better.

Please tell me how I can appeal this decision to a higher authority. Smallchief (talk) 21:48, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

It is not your article. It is Knowledge's article. You need to distance yourself from any ownership considerations. With regard to appeals, the decision is not yet made. It seems likely that deletion will be the result. You may then take this to the Deletion Review process. Knowledge is made up of many editors, all of whom, like you, have strong opinions and the right to be heard. It is imperfect, but works well enough. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 22:40, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Friend... As someone who likes to use Ignore All Rules (and abhors authority in general), I feel I can speak with some experience when I say that this probably won't stick. Wish it would, but I would bet money it won't. I won't discourage you from seeking review afterwards, but I'm just trying to be a friend when I say "don't raise your hopes". If coolness factor was criteria, I would have voted to keep. Ask anyone, I'm quick on the trigger to AFD an article, yet I went and tried to get several other opinions simply because I was hoping that my gut instinct was wrong, and never did put it up for delete. I like the page, I think it is useful, but "original research" isn't a compliment here in AFD-land, it is a death sentence. I know you are proud of the article, and you did a great job, but as a friend, I'm telling you, there comes a time when you are better off if you drop the stick and back slowly away from the horse carcass. This is one of those times. If you can't "win", lose with dignity, and learn from the experience. Dennis Brown (talk) 22:56, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

I don't see what you're not understanding here Smallchief. This is original research. Period. Original research is forbidden. You say it's not one of the five pillars, but it is, the first one: Knowledge:Knowledge is an online encyclopedia--specifically, "WIKIPEDIA IS NOT A PLACE TO PUBLISH YOUR NEW IDEAS" (caps in original). This concept does not exist anywhere in the world other than in your own analysis. It may be relevant enough for publishing somewhere else--I can see the value in an academic analysis of Knowledge that attempts to draw some sort of conclusions about popularity based on page hits on Knowledge, assuming you could find the right academic paradigm to fit that into. But that is a research paper, suitable for an academic journal, not an encyclopedia article. Encyclopedia articles are distillations of what other sources which are already known to be reliable have said about topics.

As a side note, I have no objection to userfication of this or putting it in a Wikiproject's space, so long as it's tagged "no-index". I can see how this list would be valuable for building the encyclopedia, because it might help project members identify the articles most in need of attention (i.e., those we should concentrate on improving because they're the ones readers want to know about). But not as an encyclopedia article itself. Qwyrxian (talk) 03:38, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:48, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

• Userfy or send to project space. We don't have lists in article space based on numbers of views and I doubt that we should start. As others have mentioned, however, organizing information on this basis could be useful and interesting for other purposes, such as for project prioritization. --Arxiloxos (talk) 08:02, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
• Keep But remove the ranking data and rename to List of people of the American Old West.--Pontificalibus (talk) 11:49, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
• Delete - or Userfy - either way, the parameters for inclusion are too vague (in terms of geography and/or time) or too specific (in terms of hit-rate per period). Furthermore, since when has Knowledge been allowed to cite its own statistics to verify inclusion? Additionally, I have issues with some of the names included - Pancho Villa, OK - but where's Emiliano Zapata, then? And Alvar Nuñez Cabeza de Vaca? Are you serious? How is the 16th Century now part of the 'Old West'? Eddie.willers (talk) 23:51, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
  • • The "parameters for inclusion are clear. Prior to WW I (ie before the automobile revolution took hold) and associated with the US west of the Mississippi and nearby Canada and Mexico. Villa certainly fits. Zapata? I associate him with Morelos and Mexico City -- a long ways south of the Rio Grande.
    • Cabeza de Vaca was probably the first White man to see a bison in its natural habitat;the first to describe Plains Indians (the "People of the Stones" -- probably Jumanos -- in the vicinity of the Big Bend of Texas),and the leader of the first group of Europeans to to cross the continent from east to west. I'd say that qualifies Cabeza de Vaca for inclusion in a list of prominent people of the Old West.
    • Two people of good will can define "Old West" differently -- as almost any subject can be defined differently by different people. What were the beginning and ending dates of the Renaissance? Smallchief (talk) 02:06, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
  • merge to WP space, retitle "Most viewed WP articles about the Old West" and consider doing this for other areas also, and updating every 6 months or so. this is not article space content, but similar rankings by subject areas would be very interesting; (alternatively, start a project collecting the information, or move this to a project page). This is the sort of list for which arguing who belongs and who doesn't is really besides the point. There is some value to the reader, I think people like lists of n most whatevers for browsing, but I think article space isn't quite right. DGG ( talk ) 05:46, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
    • There are tools and bots that can do all that. See Knowledge:WikiProject Environment/Popular pages as an example. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 08:16, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
• Send to a relevant project or Userfy not suitable for the main wiki. RafikiSykes (talk) 02:11, 14 February 2012 (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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. JohnCD (talk) 17:24, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Peter J. Arduini (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Appears to be a non-notable businessman. No sources to satisfy WP:GNG or WP:BIO ("he or she has been the subject of multiple published secondary sources which are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject") GrapedApe (talk) 13:22, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:47, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

• Delete or Redirect to Integra LifeSciences. He is not notable on his own and Knowledge is not the place for a resumé. --MelanieN (talk) 01:56, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

---

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ItsZippy 15:06, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

---

• Delete - I can find no suitable references which establish notability. There is a Forbes profile, which in itself does not establish notability. There is also this, but that only references him is passing. ItsZippy 15:17, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
• Delete Just some random business person with no inherent notability. This reads more like a LinkedIn profile than anything else. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 16:14, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
• Weak delete Per above. But wp:notability appears possible. North8000 (talk) 17:29, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
• Delete - No coverage in reliable sources to establish notability. -- Joaquin008 13:21, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
• Delete - Per WP:NOTLINKEDIN S_peakF_{ree (contribs)} 18:44, 12 February 2012 (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 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. Arbitrarily0  07:18, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

International Quorum of Motion Picture Producers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Not sufficiently sourced with independent sources. The only independent sources simply include a member of this organization (and a film company executive) as a judge at a film festival. Along with Condor Films, this article has one substantial editor - this appears to be a marketing effort of some sort with no third-party substantiation. -- akendall 14:39, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

• Cautious delete - Based on what has been provided and what I can find, the article should be deleted. However, an organisation established in 1966, which has a role in deciding winners of certain film festivals, may be notable. There may well be sources that would establish notability which I have simply not found. However, without any reliable sources, there is nothing to make this inherently notable, so my vote is delete until then. ItsZippy 15:24, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

• Keep Weak keep WP:notability not established in the article, but ability to meet wp:notability looks likely. North8000 (talk) 17:33, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Update. Sources have been added. Upgraded my "Weak keep" to "keep". I think that now it clearly meets wp:notability. North8000 (talk) 22:37, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:46, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:47, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

• If the organization is relevant, there must be more infos available. will check asap. -- Mediandrea (talk) 19:25, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

• Keep Per meeting or WP:ORG and W:GNG. It was not at all difficult to find in-depth coverage of this organization going back some 46 years to 1966, as well as finding literally thousands of references in books suitable for verifiability. Due to circumstances requiring a forced cleanup, I have begun adding sources and addressing issues, but I wish to note that topic notability is determined by avalability of sources, and not by their use or lack in an article on the topic. To the nominator with respects, your nomination statement seems to be addressing the article's then current state, and not its potential for improvement. It was not difficult to find that this organization has made it into the enduring record, and it is rare that taggable issues such as needing sources or corrction of article tone are cause for deletion of topics determinable as notable. Might you now reconsider? Schmidt, 22:09, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
• Keep - clearly meets WP:ORG, due to sources added by Schmidt. --He to Hecuba (talk) 23:27, 18 February 2012 (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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Deleted under CSD A10 by RHaworth.. (non-admin closure) ItsZippy 15:18, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

True Islamic banks (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

POV fork of Islamic banking. Dennis Brown (talk) 14:08, 11 February 2012 (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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. JohnCD (talk) 14:57, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

David Santulli (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Not notable. Writing a book is swell, as is being discussed on blogs or being mentioned in a travel article, but the sum total only comes out to self promotion written by an SPA. Dennis Brown (talk) 14:06, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Also in the AFD, the article for his org:

• United Planet

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:45, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:45, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

• Delete. Fails WP:AUTHOR, WP:BIO, WP:N, WP:RS. Qworty (talk) 06:36, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. -- Joaquin008 13:23, 12 February 2012 (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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. Black Kite (talk) 19:18, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Datamatics Global Services (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Advertisement for another software services and consulting company. Current text is unambiguous advertising:

• The company provides business solutions to a wide range of industry verticals and the service offerings span across IT consulting, business process transformation, off-the-shelf technology solutions and customized software services.It also provides services to embedded engineering and telecommunications, solutions for ticketing, toll and parking applications.

References are to press releases about executive hires, routine contract announcements, and stock market data pages. Being the first company in the world to guarantee 99.997% accuracy level in Data Capture does not seem to be the sort of achievement that should be remembered for all time in an encyclopedia. Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 17:40, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions.

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 17:41, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Can we work towards improving than deleting? KuwarOnline 18:20, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Why? It's just another IT outsourcing business. Why should such a thing be covered in an encyclopedia? - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 18:36, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

• Delete - There is nothing notable here, and certainly not neutral (the term 'solutions' appears three times in the first four paragraphs. Even if this is notable, it will require a fundamental rewrite to achieve the required neutrality. ItsZippy 19:29, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
• Keep. It looks to me like it just about passes the GNG and, specifically, WP:CORP. I was hitherto unaware that our policies set a higher bar for IT outsourcing businesses or excluded them altogether - could somebody point out the specific policy? bobrayner (talk) 09:27, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

---

• Comment. Do you have specific sources that establish that this business has made history in its field? I don't believe the references currently in the article get there. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 18:03, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

• Comment: Which policy requires that a business "makes history in its field"? I searched through Knowledge:Notability and didn't find a single mention of "history". It's mentioned in your essay, of course, but that's not a policy no matter how often you link to WP:B2B at AfD. It would also help if you could clarify how we set a higher bar for IT outsourcing businesses or excluded them altogether, as I can't find a policy basis for that either. bobrayner (talk) 17:44, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

• From the beginning, when 'notability' was selected as the name for the kind of significance needed to make something a stand alone encyclopedia article subject, it has always meant long term historical notability. "Notable" for our purposes is exactly the same thing as "important enough to support a stand alone encyclopedia article", and since notability is not temporary, if it's notable now it must be notable forever. For that reason, the business notability guideline asks whether a business has had significant effects on history, technology, or culture, and when the possibility exists of commercial conflict of interest, I think it's reasonable to expect that kind of significance before allowing in obvious spam like this. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 16:54, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Bryce (talk | contribs) 01:32, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

---

• Keep It meets the relevant guideline. "Makes history in its field" is more like the equivalent of famous, and is not required for notability--but in fact the article claims it has reached the highest rate of accuracy ever in its field--it would be good to have a 3rd party source for that. The only special problem with outsourcing companies is that it's usually harder to find references than businesses that directly serve consumers. . When there are, this makes all the more reason to keep it. Smerdis' argument amounts to IDONTTHINKITBELONGSHERE, as a pure personal opinion, unsupported by policy and consequently irrelevant to the discussion. DGG ( talk ) 03:56, 5 February 2012 (UTC) .

---

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 13:00, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

---

• Weak keep Appears to just barely meet wp:notability. North8000 (talk) 17:38, 11 February 2012 (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 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. Merge and redirect to Chonga is a possibility that could be pursued by normal editing. JohnCD (talk) 17:20, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Chongalicious (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Well, notability does not expire, but internet links do, apparently. All but one of the links are dead, and GNews produces nothing. GBooks has one or two mentions, but nothing to write home about. The one live link is this one, which proves that these women apparently sang this song. Is that enough? In my opinion it isn't. Drmies (talk) 04:17, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

• Two remarks: I just saw the first AfD and I'm not swayed by the arguments (not even mildly). Second, I watched the damn video--somebody owns me a barnstar and a Knowledge t-shirt. Drmies (talk) 04:18, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
• Delete I'm gonna give the Knowledge community the benefit of the doubt and hope that keeping this in 2007 was the starry-eyed optimistic hope that this random youtube video would somehow lead to a music career for those involved. Half a decade later though it's obvious that that didn't happen and frankly isn't going to. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:30, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
• Keep Not sure why GNews produces nothing for you: I get about 30 hits including a May 26, 2008 paywalled Miami Herald article for which the GNews excerpt includes the phrase, "made "chongalicious" a household word", multiple articles in the Miami media, and a February 29, 2009 use in the Village Voice that's not substantial coverage but does suggest that the term spread past Miami. (In any event, it looks like this article should be added to Category:Culture of Miami, Florida.) If we had an article about the broader topic of the chonga I could see an possible argument to merge this there, but since we don't, I don't see any compelling reason to overturn the result of the first AfD. --Arxiloxos (talk) 15:31, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Add note: GScholar turned up a 2009 scholarly piece in the National Women's Studies Association Journal (now called Feminist Formations) entitled "'Miss, you look like a Bratz Doll': on chonga girls and sexual-aesthetic excess" that discusses "Chongalicious" along with several other works. (See for an excerpt.) --Arxiloxos (talk) 16:28, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

OK, your Gnews link doesn't produce anything for me. I did get the PDF of the article, which does discuss our subject and could be called meaningful coverage. Speaking as an academic, I think you are right and we need an article on chonga, which Hernandez's essay (she needs a proofreader) could help establish. But this is Knowledge and everything needs to be included. I might try my hand at Chonga--perhaps you can help, and then maybe we can merge. Does that sound fair? Because I still think that the video is a fly-by-night thing and also, ahem, IDONTLIKEIT! Drmies (talk) 18:40, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

I am puzzled about why the GNews search works for me but not for you; maybe someone else will have an idea about that. As for Chonga, it would be highly beneficial to get through the Miami Herald paywall, as well as incorporating information from the detailed Miami New Times article that's cited here; not surprisingly, the scholarly article takes the whole thing rather more seriously than the fun-loving folks quoted in what I can see of those news articles, which may leave something of a POV problem. Anyway, the "Chongalicious" content seems likely to be pretty much the same whether it's here or there, and its edit history has to be preserved, so does that mean we're now effectively in agreement that this AfD should close as a "keep", subject to discussion of a potential merge down the road? --Arxiloxos (talk) 23:16, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Let's wait a day to see if the Article Deletion Squad comes by and outnumbers you. Well, I can't really withdraw and close this, since we have a keeper. Moreover, I'm not actually convinced that I want to keep this article, even if I think we can keep some (a sliver, really) of its content and keep the redirect. Drmies (talk) 04:03, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:21, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

• Keep-quite possibly the most non-notable "notable" entry, but the news coverage is clearly significant. Meets WP:GNG. A412 (Talk * C) 02:21, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

---

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 12:12, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

---

• Merge with Chonga - The only two references I've found are this and this. The first is about the people who wrote the song; the second is about "chonga girls", and only mentions the song briefly in the middle of the article. If there is other substantial coverage of the actual song, I will change my vote; I am yet to see any, not have I seen any provided. ItsZippy 15:39, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
• Keep Upon quick review, appears to meet wp:notability. North8000 (talk) 17:43, 11 February 2012 (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 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 : Article was speedy deleted as a POV fork that was created to evade edit protection/content dispute on Brentwood High School (Brentwood, Pennsylvania). Zzyzx11 (talk) 09:26, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Brentwood High Racist Incident (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Essay. There is a relevant discussion here, where a notability concern was raised. I have no opinion on whether it is notable or not. →Στc. 08:57, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

• Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Knowledge:Articles for deletion/Log/2012 February 11. Snotbot  t • c »  09:07, 11 February 2012 (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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. henrik•talk 15:50, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

List of software license violations (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Fails or violates a number of policies: WP:Verifiability, WP:No original research, WP:Verifiability#Burden of evidence, WP:Libel, WP:BLP, WP:NPOV. --SF007 (talk) 21:12, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:47, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:47, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

•    Keep    (see new vote below). Of cited policies the article fully passes WP:V, WP:Libel and WP:NOR. WP:BLP and WP:NPOV are clearly not applicable at all. Referenced list of real concerns. SF007, I don't know the reasons of your crusade again information on violating ffmpeg's copyright, but this information clearly should stay. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 10:27, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
• Neutral I don't think anyone's on a crusade. OTOH I think WP:BLP is clearly irrelevant. As everything is cited, so's WP:OR and WP:V. There may, however, be problems with self-published sources. Libel doesn't apply to true statements. --NYKevin @849, i.e. 19:22, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Using unreliable sources is a WP:V problem. WP:NOR isn't a completely unreasonable objection given the article's use of sources like this mailing list post. – Pnm (talk) 01:39, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
    • Don't think these sources are unreliable though. They come from copyright holders and some of them have alleged violators' replies. That would be sufficient for DMCA takedown, but isn't for WP:RS? — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 07:14, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
      • A DMCA takedown is absurdly easy to do. Meeting our sourcing policies is less so. --NYKevin @882, i.e. 20:10, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
        • If X is enough for Y and Y is enough for Z, then X is enough for Z. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 21:04, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
      • Are the alleged violators' responses authentic? Why should we believe they are? When we start asking those questions, we are in WP:OR land. –Pnm (talk) 21:26, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
        • No, we are not, because there is no way to question that in the article, and other namespaces are out of the scope of WP:OR. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 19:48, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:RS and WP:V. It appears that 100% of the references in this article are unusable as reliable sources for the facts they're citing – that the list entries violate the licenses of some other software. For example, consider this page on the BusyBox site. While that source would be OK for citing statements about BusyBox, such as "The BusyBox project maintained a list of projects which appeared to violate its license terms," it isn't OK for a statement like "Macsense HomePod appears to violate BusyBox's license." The article cites that page 17 times. If there are reliable, secondary sources which I missed, please point them out. – Pnm (talk) 01:39, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
  • What kind of source you need for alleged copyright infringement? — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 07:10, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
    • Actually, I think that page would be a fine source if the article said something like "BusyBox claims the following companies have violated their license:". But it's not okay to just say "The following companies...", nor is it okay to say nothing and stick them on a list like this, as it's equivalent to saying they did it. --NYKevin @868, i.e. 19:49, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
      • NYKevin, you said it better. Dmitrij, I agree with NYKevin that the source would be acceptable in an article which said, "BusyBox alleges such-and-such violates its license." To place them on a list like this would require the usual, a reliable, secondary source meeting WP:RS, with some consideration of the quality of source in order to sustain WP:NPOV. For example, if articles in CNET, Wired, WSJ reported that such-and-such software violates the BusyBox license, I wouldn't have a problem using those sources. – Pnm (talk) 20:05, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
      • It is a good reason to keep article and improve it in place. Why "delete" then? — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 21:04, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
        • The topic is important, but none of the content is usable. If there were a few entries supported by good sources, I'd trim it down to those and keep, but it has zero such sources, and wouldn't be much of a list if all its entries were deleted. I "lost" recently making a similar argument (Secure error messages in software systems) but this topic seems different, perhaps because it's impossible to maintain NPOV without sources. – Pnm (talk) 21:26, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
          • WP:NPOV is absolutely irrelevant here, as there is no case for POV in suspected violations: either violation is suspected or it isn't. And there is no case for different issues regarding the important articles' deletion: in fact we judge the names here, not the content itself; literally, the vote "delete" is absolutely equal to "non-notable topic" statement and "keep" is "notable topic". There is just no room for "topic is notable, but delete it". That said, all of the ffmpeg bug entries are absolutely usable: they securely prove the fact that there is a claim about copyright violation. The violation itself is a matter of criminal investigation, not the AfD process. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 19:46, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
            • That's simply untrue -- There are lots of reasons to delete something aside from notability. --NYKevin @307, i.e. 06:21, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
              • But you might notice that all reasons for deletion of articles on the list boil down to WP:GNG: the ability to verify information with reliable sources. So my statement was simply true. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 09:35, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

---

• Suspected violations are from the POV of the accuser. – Pnm (talk) 23:47, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
  • I wouldn't say so. WP:NPOV address the cases with several viable approaches (and fringe theories as the exception). Suspected violation is a completely different matter: the statements' validity depends on fact, not on its interpretation. Thus WP:NPOV is just the wrong instrument here, as it is specifically tailored to deal with different type of cases. And even if not so, by listing an argument as "suspected violation" we give equal weight to both sides of conflict, so neutrality is properly maintained. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 23:55, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
    • Describing the accused's action as suspected makes the article accurate, not balanced. We are representing the accuser's POV, but have no reasonable way to represent the accused's without running afoul of WP:NOR. True statements can still be biased; that's the point of WP:UNDUE. – Pnm (talk) 00:04, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
      • No, we would report X's position if we were saying "Y violates X's copyright". We would report Y's position if we were saying "Y doesn't violate X's copyright" or nothing at all. The only way to keep the thing balanced is to report that "X suspects violation of its copyright by Y". That is a difference between informing and taking sides. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 00:25, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
• I can't even open the ffmpeg sources like this one. Do they actually load for you? – Pnm (talk) 00:07, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
  • No, as it is an old location. The new one is , and substituting "mplayerhq.hu/roundup/ffmpeg" with "libav.org" works for each of them IIRC. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 00:19, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

---

No, WP:V does not "boil down to" WP:GNG, which isn't met in this case anyway (none of the sources are independent). Verifiability means the statements can be verified; failing it means there aren't enough verified facts for an article. The GNG means the topic itself is noteworthy, which doesn't necessarily mean we can verify anything relating to it. --NYKevin @880, i.e. 20:06, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

That was my initial statement, actually. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 21:21, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Where in my statement did I say that this meets WP:V? I certainly don't remember saying that, but it's in your initial statement. --NYKevin @316, i.e. 06:35, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

I inserted the lines to show the start and the end of the alternative thread. Where are those LiquidThreads... — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 08:44, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

• I change my vote to snow keep per outcome of Knowledge:Deletion review/Log/2012 January 31#Secure error messages in software systems (closed). — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 21:21, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

---

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein  08:14, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

---

• Delete Arbitrary, incoherent. I don't see what could come out of this. North8000 (talk) 17:47, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
• Delete "It's real" is not an argument for inclusion. It has to be notable also. If we have an article on the software that is alledged to violate some license, then a mention of the asserted violation (or more, if the matter becomes really important) would be justified there. But a list of "Softwarethe Company X asserts violates its license" is essentially lidirectory type content. The purpose is served by the database being cited as the source here; not by an encyclopedia DGG ( talk ) 03:49, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
• Delete. Big problems with this page as it stands. First of all, the software titles are listed under a large heading "Software that violated license". It does not say "It is alleged..." or "XYZ claims..." This implies that is a proven fact that the software did in fact violate copyright. Second, most of the references for the alleged violations come from some Hungarian website of unknown credibility, which I could not reach on the web. •••Life of Riley (T–C) 21:26, 18 February 2012 (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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep.  Sandstein  10:35, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Homer Public Library (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

This is our local library. It's quite nice for a small town library, and their sales of older books have fattened my collection of hard sci-fi immensely. In short, I like this library and everything it stands for. However, I think it is a bit silly to have a Knowledge article on it. It's a small town library, and not terribly notable. The references in place are mostly from the local papers. While I would certainly consider them both reliable sources being reported on by them is not exactly a sign of notability in the sense of general notability in an encyclopedia. I've been interviewed by our two local papers a total of three times, and trust me, I'm not anybody of note. The remainder of the sources are a USEPA page which seems to be a dead link, and a link to some sort of corporate website, also a dead link. Like I said, it is a very nice facility for such a small town, but ultimately that is all it is. Beeblebrox (talk) 05:47, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, Beeblebrox, I think you underrate the value of the Homer library. Pretty much every library in Alaska with the exceptions of Anchorage and Fairbanks' libraries might be considered small libraries by Outside standards. Being the third LEED building in the state is quite significant, I'd say, and it has served as an example and standard for other buildings . Quite a few articles on Alaska institutions and personages get nominated for deletion due to their lack of notability, supposedly, but in a small state a small institution has much more proportionate influence. It sounds to me like the real problem here is that the links are outdated and the page needs cleanup. That's a different matter than needing deletion. I vote for keeping it. Deirdre (talk) 20:50, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

I can't imagine how you could think I underrate the value of the library when I made it abundantly clear that I value it very much. What I doubt is its general notability. Even if the links were updated they are not really any good as far as notability, and the local paper isn't either. Do you have any evidence whatsoever that it has served as an example for other projects? What were those other projects? Where is the coverage which states the Homer library was their inspiration? How does being the third building to meet a particular standard confer automatic notability? I don't see any backing for any of those positions, they seem rather to be your opions. I'd be happy to be proven wrong if you can supply evidence to back your position. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:23, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Alaska-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 16:42, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Museums and libraries-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 16:42, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Delete: I'm somewhat rehashing my argument from the last deletion discussion. Working on updating/reorganization of Portal:Alaska and WP:ALASKA. This gives me too much information on what exists and what doesn't and what might need to exist at some point. The approach to creating articles used thus far and its organic nature reveals huge gaps. I bet there'll be an article on Ahmaogak Sweeney (currently enjoying a buzz in the media for his role in Big Miracle) before there's articles on any number of actually notable Iñupiaq (like his grandmother, perchance?). The public libraries of both Anchorage and Juneau are lacking articles. In these cases, notability exists both due to the history of the establishment and the architecture of the buildings. Compare with articles such as this, Haines Borough Public Library and John Trigg Ester Library, whose comparative notability is questionable. The George C. Thomas Memorial Library can claim substantial independent notability, so I won't complain about this community having two separate articles on its public libraries. People who don't know any better will run with what you give them, but only what you give them. Also, perhaps "Being the third LEED building in the state is quite significant, I'd say" requires addditional explanation, because it sounds to me like you're fetching for a reason.RadioKAOS (talk) 22:56, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

---

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein  08:13, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

---

Comment The architect firm apparently got a couple of awards for the building: 2007 Honor Award • AIA Alaska Chapter, 2007 Member's Choice Award • AIA Alaska Chapter State Convention, 2007 Best Non-Residential Award • AIA Alaska Chapter State Convention, 2007 Judge's Choice: Community Beautification Award • Homer Chamber of Commerce, 2006 People's Choice Award • AIA Alaska Chapter State Convention. / Pax:Vobiscum (talk) 12:30, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Keep I've added some references and the awards. Although the library is small it has gotten quite a bit of attention due to its new building and LEED certification. Pax:Vobiscum (talk) 14:09, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

• Keep - Small libraries are not usually notable, but the LEED status (with the relevant references) make it so. ItsZippy 15:43, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
• Weak Keep Appears to meet wp:notability. North8000 (talk) 17:51, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
• Keep References meet WP:GNG significant coverage in reliable sources. Per criteria in WP:NONPROFIT, this small organization has received recognition in the form of state and national-level prizes. Djembayz (talk) 02:34, 12 February 2012 (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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to YG (rapper). King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:49, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

The Real 4Fingaz (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

This mixtape has zero gnews hits, zero gbooks hits, and zero refs. Tagged for lack of notability and lack of refs since April. Epeefleche (talk) 22:46, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

• Delete. Not only are there no sources, but this is a mixtape, not even a full studio album. —C.Fred (talk) 23:05, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

• Yep. We seem to have many mixtape articles ... see Category:Mixtape albums.--Epeefleche (talk) 23:10, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

• Actually, good point. WP:NALBUMS does not distinguish between an official studio album and any other collection of recordings; they all must meet the general notability guidelines before they may have articles. —C.Fred (talk) 23:16, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:48, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

---

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Bryce (talk | contribs) 00:53, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

---

---

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 07:23, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

---

• Redirect to YG (rapper) - I can find nothing beyond track listings; redirect the non-notable album to the artist's page, as is the norm. ItsZippy 15:50, 11 February 2012 (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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:49, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Counterpoint (magazine) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

I found no significant coverage for this student magazine. Fails WP:N. SL93 (talk) 21:24, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:45, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:45, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

• Delete - No coverage in reliable sources. I did find this Dartmouth Review article on conservative student publications which provides some coverage of the 1979 incarnation of Couterpoint, but the Dartmouth Review is college press. -- Whpq (talk) 17:44, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

---

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 07:22, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

---

• Delete per nom. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 21:00, 11 February 2012 (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 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:50, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Virtual Print Fee (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

This article is a technical description and has nothing more to add. hence, it belongs more to Wiktionary Wikishagnik (talk) 19:31, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Albeit I am biased, being that I wrote the article, but I believe as a reference for someone researching film projection this is important. I always view Knowledge as a reference and when I couldn't find anything on VPF, I felt it worth creating an article for reference. Encyclopedia Reference

The article is a bit of a stub and could use some more work, but I'm not sure it should be deleted. Maybe it should be absorbed into the Digital Cinema page if it can't function as a standalone?

I'm not quite clear why you find this a "technical description" could you please clarify what about the article makes it a technical description and less of an encyclopedia entry? I would be happy to change the aspects that make it seem like a technical description! Wikitionary v. Knowledge AzryckAnin (talk) 00:20, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

• Comment I think this is a subject about which we could and should have an article, but a Knowledge article does need references providing substantial coverage from 3rd party independent published reliable sources, print or online, but not blogs or press releases, or material derived from press releases. An faq on a company web site is not really what we're looking for--even when their purpose is to define terms in their business field. Articles in technical magazines or journals, or material in standard textbooks,makes the best sources. DGG ( talk ) 02:10, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:34, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:34, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

• Comment Thanks DGG! That's helpful, I made some edits and added some additional citations from The New York Times and Professor David Bordwell, who is an author of numerous textbooks on film. It is difficult to find textbooks on the subject matter as they are currently being written (and if I am not incorrect, David Bordwell may very well turn his current blog into a textbook on digital projection). However I hope that these additional citations help to add a bit of credibility and verifiability to the entry? AzryckAnin (talk) 17:55, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

• Keep The concept look encyclopedia and we appear to have a willing editor to fix the (many) issues. Stuartyeates (talk) 03:34, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

---

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 07:22, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

---

• Keep - according to Google books, the topic has been published fairly well. Seems more than a dictionary definition. Regards, Arbitrarily0  16:16, 11 February 2012 (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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:49, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Sam Arlen (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

All sources are primary; no indication of notability other than being the son of Harold Arlen. ZZArch  07:42, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:26, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

---

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Armbrust, B.Ed. _{about my edits?} 17:50, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

---

• Delete as lacking WP:RS. If extra WP:RS are added to the article, feel free to ping me on my talk page. Stuartyeates (talk) 03:49, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

---

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 07:19, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

---

• Delete per nom. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 21:03, 11 February 2012 (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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. In view of low participation, this is a soft delete - the article will be restored on request to WP:REFUND JohnCD (talk) 17:11, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Lagan (album) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

This album exists, but lacks sufficient multiple, substantial RS coverage. Tagged for zero refs for 2 years, without improvement. Epeefleche (talk) 02:30, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:29, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:29, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

---

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Armbrust, B.Ed. _{about my edits?} 17:45, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

---

• Delete as unreferenced. If WP:RS are added to the article, feel free to ping me on my talk page. Stuartyeates (talk) 03:50, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

---

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 07:19, 11 February 2012 (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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. to delete, defaulting to keep. It does appear that the IP editor has added reliable third party sources to the article, addressing the deletion concerns. (non-admin closure) Alpha_Quadrant (talk) 00:46, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Deniz Koyu (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Non-notable DJ, no claims of notability, no reliable sources, my speedy deletion tag was removed without an explanation. The Mark of the Beast (talk) 02:27, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Ill be adding some tonight — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stickygum (talk • contribs) 07:22, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:28, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

• Weak Keep Good sources at MTV and a not-quite-independent mention at DJ. Probably needs one more good source. I'm not sure that any of the foreign-language news results qualify. 86.44.24.82 (talk) 19:40, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

---

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Armbrust, B.Ed. _{about my edits?} 17:44, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

---

---

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 07:19, 11 February 2012 (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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus to delete. JohnCD (talk) 17:08, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Whistles (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Some press coverage but doesn't seem to be notable. Philafrenzy (talk) 01:08, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:13, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:13, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

• Keep - notable company. In addition to sources cited in the article, coverage at . Peter E. James (talk) 19:28, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

---

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Armbrust, B.Ed. _{about my edits?} 17:38, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

---

---

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 07:18, 11 February 2012 (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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:44, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

HART CULTURE C.I.C (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Dubious notability; sources do not appear to support the notability of the subject. ZZArch  01:05, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:09, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

---

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Armbrust, B.Ed. _{about my edits?} 17:37, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Some of the "refs" dont even refer to the subject. smooth00₇ (talk) 18:32, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

---

---

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 07:18, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

---

• Delete - fails WP:N. Eddie.willers (talk) 22:59, 11 February 2012 (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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. There appear to be two possible subjects, neither obviously notable. After two relistings and no further input, I invoke WP:NOQUORUM - this is a soft delete, similar to a PROD, and the article will be restored on request at WP:REFUND. JohnCD (talk) 17:06, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

TFG Sports (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Not notable. Philafrenzy (talk) 01:04, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:08, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:08, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

• Comment I have no position on the article being deleted, but to aid those who participate in this AfD, I have to share this. If you go to Google or another similar search engine and look up 'TFG Sports', you'll find two companies that need to be distinguished.

  1. A South African sports retail chain. There's an article about them in the African Business Journal. TFG here stands for 'Track and Field Group'
  2. The subject of this article, a UK-based sportswear company. The 'TFG' in 'TFG Sports' here stands for 'The Fielding Group'. Their website is tfgsports.com, only it doesn't actually work and just returns the word "test". They are a subdivision of a larger company, The Fielding Group, who manufacture clothes for a wide range of retailers in both the sportswear and more general clothing sector.

  I think the most promising course of action, if sources can be found, is probably to create a stub called 'The Fielding Group' and redirect to that. As for sources? The best I can find are The Independent and New York Times, although the latter is really more of a passing mention. —Tom Morris (talk) 11:15, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

---

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Armbrust, B.Ed. _{about my edits?} 17:37, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

---

---

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 07:17, 11 February 2012 (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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge to Mr. Potato Head. A merge is clearly indicated, although two possible targets have been identified. I went with the one with previous history on this type of thing, though feel free to change it .... Black Kite (talk) 19:19, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Optimash Prime (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Seems to fail WP:GNG due to lack of significant coverage. While internet searches turn up an initially promising number of news results, the coverage isn't too in-depth, with the reliable sources telling you little more than that the toy exists and costs around $10. Perhaps I'm missing some significant coverage hiding behind a paywall, and if that's the case, please bring it up. Chris the Paleontologist (talk • contribs) 00:41, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:01, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

---

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Armbrust, B.Ed. _{about my edits?} 17:34, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

---

---

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 07:17, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

---

• Merge to Optimus Prime. Worth mentioning but perhaps not worth its own article. JIP | Talk 09:06, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
• Comment: IF not kept, there's more than one possible merger target, unfortunately -- optimus prime or mr. potato head. in 2006, Darth Tater (lol) was redirected to potato head, and then later to here.--Milowent • 13:07, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
  • I fail to see why Darth Tater should be redirected to Optimash Prime. The characters they're parodying - Darth Vader and Optimus Prime - aren't related at all. Their only connection is Mr. Potato Head, so the articles should be redirected either to the original characters, or to Mr. Potato Head, not to each other. JIP | Talk 19:58, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
• Merge to Mr. Potato Head - coverage not in-depth, per nom. -- Trevj (talk) 04:44, 20 February 2012 (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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 21:29, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Tatung Institute Tea Culture and Department of Business Management (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Fails WP:N and WP:ORG. Just to be clear, Tatung Institute of Technology is a notable educational institution. Tatung Institute Tea Culture and Department of Business Management is a new, small department within the institution. One of the references says that the department has only 10 students. Of course there is no inherited notability. If a university is notable, that does not mean that each department (could be 100s per university) should get its own article. Logical Cowboy (talk) 16:42, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:42, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Taiwan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:42, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

• Question. Is this perhaps the most notable such department in the world? It's not a field where I have any familiarity. If not, merge, as usual for academic departments. DGG ( talk ) 03:31, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

• That's a really interesting question. As far as I can tell, the department is 1 year old and has 10 students. Logical Cowboy (talk) 03:52, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

• Tatung Institute of Technology is not related to the Tatung Institute Tea Culture and Department of Business Management, they are different schools in different cities, also while tea culture and studies (in English)is not popular it still is notable, about the article of "ten students", what it says is that they recruited 45 students which went down to 10 which are mostly childern of tea farmers, and also had 18 students from the school so now have 28. icetea8 (talk) 05:17, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

• Tatung Institute Tea Culture and Department of Business Management is a department of Tatung Institute of Commerce and Technology. The website of the former is http://tea.ttc.edu.tw/ and the website of the latter is http://www.ttc.edu.tw/. The subject of the article is not a school, it's a small, minor department. The point is that single departments of whole universities don't normally get their own articles. When it is a 1 year old department with 28 students after 35 quit, and there is no 3rd party evidence of notability, it surely should not get its own article. Logical Cowboy (talk) 05:30, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

---

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 07:16, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

---

• Delete per Knowledge:Articles_for_deletion/Bachelor_of_Legal_Studies_(Hons) and similar cases. We don't keep articles on small departments in academia. Bearian (talk) 22:03, 13 February 2012 (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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to ABC Movie of the Week. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 20:27, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

ABC Suspense Movie (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Fails WP:GNG. There is some coverage of when it started and when it was canceled. It could be redirected to ABC Movie of the Week, which mentions it. Bbb23 (talk) 16:10, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:15, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

---

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 07:16, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

---

• Redirect per nom's target; nothing here the main ABC Movie of the Week article has said already. Nate • (chatter) 11:30, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Agree, redirect to ABC MOW article, unless someone can come up with enough additional noteworthy details to justify an independent article, which seems doubtful. --Markt3 (talk) 05:16, 14 February 2012 (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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Essi Wuorela. JohnCD (talk) 16:47, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Mitä tarkoittaa rakas (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Lacks substantial RS coverage, Allmusic never heard of it, and has zero refs -- for which it has been tagged for 2 years. Epeefleche (talk) 07:59, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Finland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:14, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:14, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

• Redirect to Essi Wuorela. Album doesn't merit it's own article due to lack of coverage in reliable sources, but could be useful as a redirect. Armbrust, B.Ed. _{about my edits?} 14:09, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

• A redirect would be fine with me.--Epeefleche (talk) 07:15, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

---

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein  07:48, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

---

---

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 07:10, 11 February 2012 (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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedy Delete per G12. Non admin closure as User:Future Perfect at Sunrise forgot to close the AfD. -Michaelzeng7 (talk - contribs) 15:04, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Income Tax Department (Bangalore) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Local branch of a national agency, with the information either totally non-specific or organizational details of concern only to those who work within it. DGG ( talk ) 02:54, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:41, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:41, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

If police organisations can have their own wikipedia articles,giving information then why the unnecessary picking on Income Tax Department.9(Nirmal95 (talk) 06:41, 5 February 2012 (UTC))

• Delete - As a sub-sub-unit of an organisation with local juridisdiction, and no particular claim to notability beyond what the parent organisation does, it fails to meed the inclusion guideline for WP:ORG. -- Whpq (talk) 17:55, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

---

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 07:09, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

---

• Delete as it is a copyright problem with http://www.incometaxindia.gov.in/prototype/ccit/CBDT.asp (Duplication Detector report). ---Michaelzeng7 (talk - contribs) 21:10, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Also, the nominator has a point, it has very little information about the agency itself (without the copyvio stuff), rather the people in it. ---Michaelzeng7 (talk - contribs) 21:15, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
  • The article is also a duplicate of Central Board for Direct Taxes, which has the same concept AND, coincidentally, the same copyright problem. --Michaelzeng7 (talk -

Can i create the same website without copying?????(Nirmal95 (talk) 11:20, 17 February 2012 (UTC))

contribs) 21:23, 11 February 2012 (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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:44, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

David Joy (author) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Author of a single book, held in only 6 US libraries (published by regional publisher, though, not self published) DGG ( talk ) 02:51, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Bgwhite (talk) 08:41, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

• Delete Agree with nom. His website lists the book as a finalist for the 2012 Reed Environmental Writing Award. The award's website says nominations are due January 13, 2012 and won't be awarded till November. I see nothing about 2012 finalists. Looks to be a case of WP:TOOSOON. Bgwhite (talk) 08:41, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

---

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 07:09, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

---

• Delete - try as I might, I can't see fulfillment of WP:N here. Also, there's something fishy about article author's contributions thus far as they all relate to this one topic. Eddie.willers (talk) 22:56, 11 February 2012 (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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. per WP:SOFTDELETE Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 11:03, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

E.a. koetting (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Author of questionable notability. Google news search on the name shows zero results. Standard search shows a lot of primary sources, social media, and unreliable sources, but no significant coverage found from independent reliable sources. MikeWazowski (talk) 02:22, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:41, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

• Delete. While the information I'm pulling up about him certainly is interesting, there aren't enough reliable sources out there to show notability. I'd be willing to say that the Coast to Coast AM show could count as a reliable source, but the others on the article wouldn't be considered reliable sources per WP:RS. Writing a book does not guarantee notability regardless of whether it's a mainstream, indie, or self-published title. I know that it's harder for occult books to gain the sources needed to pass the strict notability guidelines, but there's no getting around that. Koetting just doesn't meet notability guidelines. He might have written a book and be known amongst his niche (for good or bad), but neither of those things paired together is enough to pass WP:AUTHOR. You must have multiple reliable secondary sources to show notability and that just isn't present here. Tokyogirl79 (talk) 05:57, 4 February 2012 (UTC)tokyogirl79

---

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 07:08, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

---

---

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Alpha_Quadrant (talk) 00:47, 19 February 2012 (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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to List of airports in India. Duplicate article with an obvious redirect. No need to drag this out. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 19:37, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

List of international airports in India (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Redundant list. There already exists an extensive list of airports in India. — Abhishek  07:02, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. — Abhishek  07:04, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

• Redirect As a possible search term. No need for an AfD. Lugnuts (talk) 10:30, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
• Speedy redirect to List of airports in India It's a plausible search term. ApprenticeFan 13:26, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
• Redirect to List of airports in India. Carrite (talk) 17:38, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:34, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:34, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:35, 12 February 2012 (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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Technically this is a delete of the article. Lenticel's Dab page, however, is useful so should be kept, which makes closing this AfD slightly awkward. I am closing as delete the article as stands, and will restore as a dab. SilkTork 10:59, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Magat (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Dicdef, couldn't find any sources. Ten Pound Hammer • 06:38, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

• Delete A dicdef certainly, but not even authoritative ("could be the source ..."). Emeraude (talk) 10:51, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
• Delete - no cited etymology given - pure WP:OR in its present form. Eddie.willers (talk) 22:52, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:30, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

• Comment (because I'm not deeply familiar with the subject) - I do know that the word exists in the Tagalog language, but I'm not aware of any other information about the word that could be used in a Knowledge article. Analogous terms in the English language (although not precise) are "sir" or "lord", but other than that I'm not aware about the nature of the word itself (e.g. is it a hereditary title like those of British titles of nobility? etc.) Perhaps, if some editors can bring up at least published (i.e. books) information about "Magat", then I might be inclined to vote "Keep". But not for now as I really don't know much about this word's background. --- Tito Pao (talk) 00:47, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
• Converted to dab Can't find sources at Google Books and Google Scholar so I made a dab instead.--Lenticel 02:42, 16 February 2012 (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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. JohnCD (talk) 15:13, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

List of cricket incidents (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

No clear indication as to what's an "incident". Several of these may be notable, but without a criterion for inclusion, the concept as a whole isn't. Ten Pound Hammer • 06:38, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

• delete WP:BLP and WP:UNDUE issues, just going thrrough the list there are num,ber which shouldnt be there, because they are unfounded allegations or not criminal matters. WP:TABLOID Gnangarra 07:20, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
  • comment actually when I consider what a list of cricket incidents is details I'd expect it to cover are on field events, like Lillee with the aluminium bat, Trevor Chappell underarm bowling incident, Alderman breaking his shoulder during a pitch invasion, Sydney pitch invasion 1920's, match fixing, chucking, even bodyline. It should be renmaed as List of cricketers involved in off field incidents Gnangarra 14:07, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
• Delete - per the above. I think you can also add WP:NOTDIRECTORY to it as well. AssociateAffiliate (talk) 22:32, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
• Delete - as per all of the above. Without criteria for inclusion, how can this be maintained? Eddie.willers (talk) 22:50, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:28, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:29, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. -- Joaquin008 13:25, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
• Delete. Maybe we could have a list of notable cricket incidents including, for example, bodyline and the ball of the century, but this article doesn't do what it says on the tin: it is a list of non-cricket incidents involving cricketers. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:49, 12 February 2012 (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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 18:22, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Jean Andeka (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Delete per WP:BLP1E. Andeka is only relevant as a candidate in an election (in which he received less then 1% of the vote) and other then that is a non-notable an attorney (http://www.lareference.cd/2011/09/the-attorney-jean-marie-andeka.html). Nolelover 18:16, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:35, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:36, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

• Delete Unsuccessful political candidate. Google News finds only minimal coverage, which all appears to be routine mentions in connection with the election. --MelanieN (talk) 01:26, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

---

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:18, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

---

• Delete per above. -- Joaquin008 13:26, 12 February 2012 (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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. SilkTork 10:32, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Josué Alex Mukendi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Deleted per WP:BLP1E, as Mukendi is only notable for an election in which he garnered <.5% of the vote. According to this http://www.openandfreedrc.org/#/profiles-2/4559170588 he's a pastor when not running for office. Nolelover 18:25, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:37, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:38, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

• Delete Unsuccessful political candidate; only minimal coverage found, all related to the election. --MelanieN (talk) 01:20, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

---

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:18, 11 February 2012 (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 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. Articles at Knowledge are not deleted because they are abandoned. We wait for others to come by and pick up editing them again. Dcoetzee 11:29, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

TMCR 95.3 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Original author is no longer part of the project, as noted in the Talk page of the main item. Rather than leave old information standing, with no author to maintain the entry, it was felt better to delete the entire thing. TrustAM (talk) 05:37, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

• Keep I'm sorry, but our policies are quite clear. Even if an editor (with a conflict of interest as admitted here) leaves their workplace and was the majority editor, others have edited the article besides the original author (a long-departed IP), and under the terms of Creative Commons and the GFDL which makes all contributions property of the Project, this article should remain as station has not left air and is publicly licensed. Others can easily help maintain the article in the future. Nate • (chatter) 06:19, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
• Keep: Extremely poor reason for deletion. Page can and will be updated by other Wikipedians in the Doncaster area or even outside of it. Please, also read WP:OWN. Request: Since this user is an admitted former employee of this station, I request this AfD be ended early per WP:COI. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 10:08, 11 February 2012 (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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy delete: G3, obvious hoax. --Kinu /_c 08:56, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

The Funny Face Show (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

This article has no sources, and no indication of notability. It's about a cartoon possibly coming out in 2013. The article itself even explicitly states that it may not be picked up. This directly violates WP:NFF, which, granted is about films and, granted, is only a guideline...but the same idea applies: a piece of media that has not yet been created and whose very creation is in doubt is not notable enough for an article. Once the series is actually produced and aired, it will likely be notable enough for an article, but since that may never happen, it needs to be deleted for now. Qwyrxian (talk) 04:07, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

• Delete textbook WP:TOOSOON. Ten Pound Hammer • 05:23, 11 February 2012 (UTC) G3 as blatant hoax per below. Ten Pound Hammer • 07:10, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
• Delete Yet another hoax article which ignores corporate competition between kid's networks, the fact nobody since 1980 has heard of Funny Face Drink Mix, and common sense (Miranda Cosgrove and Tom Kenney will never be seen or heard on Cartoon Network until the day Meryl Streep decides to do a weekly three-camera sitcom, and Mitchell Musso has been effectively blacklisted because of his DUI by Disney). Reads as total WP:BOLLOCKS for the use of the character name "Injun Orange" alone; CN would be burned to the ground if they aired a minute of that character doing anything. Please look at all of SushiDumpling (talk · contribs)'s contribs; it looks like they have quite a few hoaxes and edits that aren't designed to build an encyclopedia; Time Team (TV series) ("starring" John Travolta and Whoopi Goldberg) looks like another good AfD candidate. Nate • (chatter) 06:32, 11 February 2012 (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 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. JohnCD (talk) 16:35, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

ICCF Finland (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Subdivision of parent company which doens't have an article. Dubious notability, minimal sourcing. Ten Pound Hammer • 04:06, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

• International Correspondence Chess Federation <- this parent "company"? —Ruud 12:43, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
• Weak delete - It seems to be a *very* old organisation, but whether it has had significant coverage outside of specialist chess publications I just don't know. Finnish is an impenetrable language! The request for independent citations has been on the article for over 18 months with no improvement. Sionk (talk) 22:12, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:13, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:14, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

• Neutral, leaning merge I found this, but that's all, with a pretty specific Google news search. So, Merge to the ICCF article Ruud Koot "discovered". Jclemens (talk) 04:13, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
• Keep per WP:BEFORE. There are several similar organization in Category:Regional ICCF organisations. Try discussing what to do with them first at WikiProject Chess (or WikiProject Finland). —Ruud 12:44, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

That's an WP:OTHERSTUFF argument you are making, nothing to do with WP:BEFORE. Sionk (talk) 13:11, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

No, because there's a lot of other stuff this should have been discussed at the appropriate WikiProject before sending it to AfD. They may help in finding appropriate sources or suggest all the articles should be merged or that this, some or all the articles should indeed end up at AfD. —Ruud 13:18, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

• Keep We usually make articles for national organization in the field of sports -- and ,for that matter, in most other areas also, and this is the national organization for the field. We have articles on many of the others, and they show that there will be plenty to say for all of them. Lookingat some of the others, there's too much to usefully merge. DGG ( talk ) 05:49, 13 February 2012 (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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Delete as inappropriately written content fork. SilkTork 10:31, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Organizational configuration (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

As 22 months ago, many issues but mostly written like an essay with sourcing, OR and POV issues. It was suggested it could be fixed but it's been barely touched since. There's already an article organizational structure on essentially the same topic without these issues. JohnBlackburne_deeds 02:46, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:12, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

• Keep and improve the prose. I regret that I cannot do more in working on improving articles like this myself, but I find its all I can do to respond to attempts to delete them. The organizational structure article is reasonably good, but its a very general article about all sort of organization. This one is really about Business organizational configuration, a fairly restricted subset of the total possibilities. There is no deadline on improvements. The deWP has been known to delete articles based on the quality of the writing, but we don't have enough skilled writers that such a practice would leave much of an encyclopedia. It is not all that unreasonable, after all, for articles about business topics to be written in business jargon. Articles about politics have their jargon also, as does each of the sports. To me, this is considerably more readable than any of our long articles on football or cricket. DGG ( talk ) 05:54, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
• Delete. There is a distinction between jargon, which may be unavoidable, and patter, a glib performance meant to create a false impression of substance --- in other words, bullshit. The instant article is full of vague verbal performances that seem calculated to impress, but to which no certain meaning can be ascribed:

• Today’s companies are faced with strategic tasks emerging from the international operating environment. The ability to respond to those tasks is usually constrained by their internal capabilities, which are shaped by the company’s administrative heritage. The administrative heritage can be defined as “the path by which it developed- its organizational history- and the values, norms, and practices of its management- its management culture.” Every company is influenced by these. It consists of many aspects of a company’s past such as home-country culture, history, and the influence of specific individuals. “Collectively, these factors constitute a company’s administrative heritage.”

Let's use Mickey's Diner as a test case. Explain the "strategic tasks" this company faces, and how they "emerge from the international operating environment." Phrases like this sound important, but that's all they do; the inappropriate level of abstraction empties them of meaning. There are also odd, random bits of original research:

• Three basic organizational configurations: centralization, decentralization, and coordination have been common using between companies around the world. Centralized hub is focusing on the objective of global efficiency rather than local responsiveness and decision making is made by headquarter; the primary Japanese characteristic of business operating structure is centralized configuration. On the other hand, decentralized federation companies are willing to delegate more operating independence and strategic freedom to their subsidiaries. Decision making is decided by local subsidiaries to adapt general situations and satisfy regional consumers’ needs; most European firms prefer to function this model. In addition, coordinated federation is compromising these two hubs and creating a different idea to perform business; U.S style of companies is the basic idea of coordinated federation. The feature of this model is the subsidiaries autonomy to deal with local markets but strong ties to the central companies, facilitates substantial feedback for improving efficiency among the subsidiaries.

All of this makes rather surprising, if vague, claims. And yes, quality of writing is especially important in fields like these; there are hosts of trivial variations on various management theories. New labels are being constantly supplied for old ideas in an attempt to claim a new catchphrase as a brand. It does seem that such meaningful content as might be on this page is indeed redundant to organizational structure; that too discusses the advantage and disadvantages of various configurations and levels of centralization. Much of the discussion here is original research, again, and not really well suited to being preserved by merger either. It isn't "bad writing" broadly defined: prose designed to promote, mislead, or confuse may be "good writing" if it succeeds at those goals; but it's "bad" for an encyclopedia and does not belong here. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 16:49, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

• Delete. Essay-like, jargon-ridden (I agree with Smerdis that this is a case of vague waffle rather than technical terms) and from the reference list largely derived from two books by three particular authors. If the subject were not covered otherwise, it might be worth letting this linger on in the hope that one day someone might improve it, but Organizational structure covers the same ground much better. JohnCD (talk) 16:34, 18 February 2012 (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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. No assertion or evidence of notability. Sources are few and poor quality press releases. SilkTork 09:41, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Pyro Desktop (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

This is an old article that's been marked for notability for a long time. Googling for it doesn't reveal very much recent, most of it seems to be an unrelated desktop wallpaper. The original sources don't seem to indicate sufficient notability either. The desktoplinux.com blurb (labeled as eweek) is really just an announcement from the project, and the slashdot post is the same. The only real review is the arstechnica article. It's a fine project, but I'm not sure it meets notability criteria. However I didn't want to prod it without review. Shadowjams (talk) 02:28, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

• Update - I just noticed there was a previous nomination. However, that was almost a year ago and the result was no consensus, so I don't think there's harm in renomination now. Shadowjams (talk) 02:31, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
• Comment At this point I accept a review and reevaluation of the sources is needed. Perhaps instead of deletion the content can be merged with the developer's bio article? riffic (talk) 08:18, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

  There's two developers listed and only Toshok has a bluelinked page. There should be a mention of this project in his bio of course. I'm not sure "merge" is the right term though. His bio should cover this regardless, but the project-specific detail wouldn't fit into a bio. There's also not a lot in the Pyro article to merge. Frankly it reads a bit like a release announcement. Shadowjams (talk) 23:22, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

• Delete All I can find is three sources (all from 2007), that are already in the article - Desktop Linux, arstechnica and what appears to be the Polish version of PC World. Looking at the dates and structure of the first and third, my cynical side suggests they have been recycled from the same press release. I'm inclined to suggest such sparse coverage stretches WP:GNG to breaking point. As for a merge, I have serious concerns about the Chris Toshok article. The article is an unsourced WP:BLP. The subject himself appears to be of marginal notability. In my opinion the only thing saving that article from an abrupt trip to AfD itself is not mentioned in the article . Pit-yacker (talk) 23:51, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:11, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

• Merge to Web operating system. Although the references are convincing that it is worth of mention, the project itself seems to be dead and indeed all the sources report the same GUADEC presentation. Though right now the proposed target page is a mess, the concept of operating system as a bootable browser was and still is fairly popular, and it even has notable implementations: Google Chrome OS and webOS. So the target can be converted to the article, dedicated to the concept and verifiable attempts at implementation, thus serving a background for both notable implementations. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 13:58, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Note: see similar discussion about OS.js article. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 13:50, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

• Delete for lack of notability and reliable sources. AndrewWTaylor (talk) 15:59, 17 February 2012 (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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Deleted per CSD G7. Non-admin closure. Imzadi 1979 → 07:02, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Springfield Road, Kelowna (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Fails WP:GNG. Article provides no WP:RS evidence of notability. It was a waste of other editors' time to create this article. Unfortunately the author has created many of this type. Logical Cowboy (talk) 00:53, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

• Delete - WP is not a street directory and I can't see anything special about this street. Sionk (talk) 21:56, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
• Delete - notability not established. Why is this particular street important? Eddie.willers (talk) 22:44, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of British Columbia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:08, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:09, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

• Delete - After some searches, not finding coverage in reliable sources. Northamerica1000 07:28, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
• Comment - this appears to be a commerical street with at least one church and a funeral home, amongst other businesses. It looks like a major road on Google Maps, and I found a few mentions in several other searches. I'm not sure about this one. Bearian (talk) 22:10, 13 February 2012 (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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. I'll note that the link provided by the keep !voter claims to be taken from a Knowledge article and thus is not a reliable source for WP:N purposes. Rlendog (talk) 03:15, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Chaâbi Rock'n Bled (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Album lacks substantial RS coverage. Was PRODed, but creator removed PROD without explanation. Epeefleche (talk) 00:52, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. I'm seeing listings for this album at iTunes/Amazon and the like, as well as mentions on Facebook and other social media sites, but nothing in reliable sources; does not appear to meet WP:GNG or WP:NALBUM.  Gongshow  03:16, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
• Keep This is an album of some of the best Chaâbi music by a very notable Algerian artist of relevance even in political terms because of his immense popularity despite opposition from the Algerian government. See for example his biography where the album is mentioned as part of his discography. The article is in French, but then most Algerian artists are covered by French-language sites. Music.Me website werldwayd (talk) 21:31, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
• Delete: An online biography does not show notability. SL93 (talk) 22:18, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
• Delete: per WP:NALBUMS --Omar-Toons (talk) 02:36, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Middle East-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:06, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:07, 12 February 2012 (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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. JohnCD (talk) 15:38, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

EDIFECS (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Not really notable. references do not establish notability. Existing isn't enough to pass WP:CORP Dennis Brown (talk) 00:51, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

• Mild delete - gnews hits are about 90% press releases, and most of the rest are two-to-four sentence mentions like this, but mixed in there is this more in-depth piece. Still, the article in its current state could probably get speedied as WP:PROMO. --Nat Gertler (talk) 03:30, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:01, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:02, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

• Delete per WP:B2B rationale. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 14:02, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
• Delete. Current text qualifies for speedy deletion as unambiguous advertising. a Healthcare Information Management company specilaizing in providing software for improving Healthcare efficiency by providing transactional efficiency tools for Providers and Payer organizations - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 23:15, 12 February 2012 (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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. JohnCD (talk) 15:37, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

WE'AR (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

New article with no references, no claim of notability and obvious notability. Stuartyeates (talk) 00:32, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

• Delete - seems to have some respect in the Blog-o-sphere, but that isn't enough for the requirements of WP:GNG or WP:CORP. Sionk (talk) 21:49, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:00, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

• Delete - After searches, not finding coverage in reliable sources (RS). I found directory listings and blog mentions (examples linked), but not RS. Northamerica1000 07:32, 12 February 2012 (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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. With no sources and a release so far away, this is too CRYSTALline even for a redirect. JohnCD (talk) 15:36, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Diary of Compton (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Crystalball. Album to be released in a year or so. Maybe. Dennis Brown (talk) 00:03, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

• Delete. No confirmed release date or track listing for this possible future release, and I'm not finding significant coverage in reliable sources that might otherwise satisfy WP:NALBUM.  Gongshow  03:12, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
• Redirect to Game. Till I Go Home (talk) 07:17, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:53, 12 February 2012 (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.