< 8 October	10 October >

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. Also, rename to Well cementing. (non-admin closure) — ΛΧΣ21™ 13:46, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well Cementing[edit]

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

Per WP:NOR. No sources whatsoever, appears to be a guide of sorts. Swordman97 (talk) 23:02, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This was nominated for deletion less than six hours after it was created. I think it has potential and should be given time to improve. As to notability, a cursory search turns up thousands of journal articles and tens of thousands of books. Here are some books you could use as sources: Working Guide to Drilling Equipment and Operations, Structure and Performance of Cements, Standard Handbook of Petroleum and Natural Gas Engineering, Well Cementing, and Well Cementing. Papers include Well Cementing Techniques in East Sichuan, Oil-Well Cementing, An Investigation of Oil-Well Cementing, Cementing Oil and Gas Wells, Part 3, Chemical Shrinkage of Oil Well Cement Slurries. Also, I seem to remember a certain oil spill for which faulty well cementing was responsible.[1] Let's get writing. Braincricket (talk) 02:01, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A technical subject that is important to oil, water, gas and geothermal drilling, and should be well-referenced in technical literature. Thie article needs improvement and should be referenced and copyedited rather than deleted. Acroterion (talk) 20:59, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 20:53, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 20:53, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It always amazes me (although I suppose it shouldn't, given the demographics of Wikipedia editors) how the minutiae of the software industry are nearly always unquestioned as acceptable topics for articles but major topics in other industries are questioned. We don't (or, at least shouldn't) delete articles on topics that have been the subject of books from mainstream publishers. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:02, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Move to Well cementing This is a major topic in the news right now, associated with fracking. A search on [fracking "well cementing"] gives this as the first ref. Even though the nomination is not for notability, nominators should look for sources before starting an AfD discussion. The tens of thousands of sources found by the first editor to try to look for sources is not a surprise. Unscintillating (talk) 01:12, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 18:34, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Mansion (Slender)[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Per WP:Articles for deletion/Elementary (Slender) (2nd nomination), it got improperly redirected during the original AfD, then I improperly closed it. Zappa O Mati 21:52, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Redirecting isn't needed as it isn't likely to be a search term. Not notable as a standard alone article, however, since most game maps aren't and this one has nothing to demonstrate it is unique in this respect. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 09:36, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 20:49, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk). — Frankie (talk) 20:50, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Non-notable gamecruft. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 12:16, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable gamecruft. Thine Antique Pen (talk) 11:23, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Text from this article was copied (WP:Copying within Wikipedia) into Slender: The Eight Pages by User:Rhain1999. The Slenderman's Shadow maps section was removed two days later, but the content is visible in the page history. User:Joshdavies747 wrote the entire article without contributions from others. I suggest moving the page to Talk:Slender: The Eight Pages/Mansion per WP:Merge and delete#Move to subpage of talk page. WP:Merge and delete#Record authorship and delete history would also work. Flatscan (talk) 04:13, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 18:34, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Maximiliano Hernández[edit]

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

Not a notable actor. His most notable role was a very small one. Article is also unsourced. JDDJS (talk) 21:45, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I checked a variety of internet sites and found this actor has had about six bit parts or minor roles. To be notable, this actor would need to have quite a number of bit or minor roles or one or two major film or television roles. Also, the article does not have much biographical material, of which at least some exists. If this actor expands on his acting experience in the future, an article would be justified.Bill Pollard (talk) 12:23, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 20:47, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - a listing on IMDb with a series of acting jobs and working with Sir Kenneth Branagh does not confer notability. Kooky2 (talk) 21:24, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Thine Antique Pen (talk) 15:36, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Tom Sjogren[edit]

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

Doesn't seem a notable person, and there not many sources around. Thine Antique Pen (talk) 20:16, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 20:19, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 20:19, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I've added information and sources to the article. Some sources use the original spelling of his name, Sjögren, and the article on his wife, Tina Sjögren, gave a better account of how unusual their achievements are and had more references. There is in my judgement adequate coverage of their expeditions to justify an article. He also co-founded a website that collects and verifies data on expeditions and is thus frequently quoted in the press as an expert. Yngvadottir (talk) 22:14, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 14:09, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Steven Croman[edit]

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

Very one-sided, with little to no intrinsic value. Dude's a property owner, and not even a remotely notable one.CerpinTaxt (talk) 17:13, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Lack of biographical sources, does not satisfy notability guidelines. - MrOllie (talk) 17:17, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No notability established. --Phileasson (talk) 09:52, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete I don't agree with the nom's rationale being one-sided. Being one-sided is not a valid criterion for deletion, that's a WP:SOFIXIT issue. This article is, however, something that could have been speedied per A7. Article was created and edited by a single-purpose user. It's borderline adverising and I'd wager it's personal fluffery. Kill it with fire. Roodog2k (talk) 15:59, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 20:17, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not only that, but I will eat my hat if contributors Realestatewiz and Realestateexpert154 are not the same person. •••Life of Riley (T–C) 19:57, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Without prejudice to recreation when more sources develop. MBisanz ^talk 04:22, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Frost, A Gelato Shoppe[edit]

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

Scrape away all the promospam, and what we have here is an ice cream parlor in Tucson. Hardly notable. —Chowbok ☠ 19:23, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This is obviously just an attempt by some average business owners to get worldwide recognition. The awards they have won all seem to be minor and ordinary. -epzik8 11:18, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 20:15, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 20:15, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 20:15, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. In fairness, the article is a bit out of date, and this is now a chain with stores in Tucson, Phoenix, Albuquerque, and Chicago, and some indicia of local notability in Arizona, at least.[2][3][4][5][6] That may not be enough to get to notability, yet, but it's not quite as small or local a business as may have appeared.--Arxiloxos (talk) 21:16, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. As was said above, this is no longer just a local shop. This company is not large, but it has two shops in Arizona, one in New Mexico and one in Illinois. Also, it has gotten some decent reviews. One in the Trip Advisor website should be noted, in particular. This company is as notable as many small companies in Wikipedia and they, too, should have articles.Bill Pollard (talk) 01:23, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS.—Chowbok ☠ 16:43, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS rule does not apply here. The internet clearly has a significant amount of newer material on this subject. The problem is the article's author needs to use this material to update the article.Bill Pollard (talk) 12:48, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If I can interject for a second, I just wanted to state that you should never rely on other editors to add content or sources to an article. It looks like someone added it, but if you find sources that show notability for an article you should always WP:BEBOLD and add it yourself. Never assume someone else will do the work for you.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 10:53, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I checked a few links - they seem to be variable and the awards are a bit puffed up, but it is evident that this has become significant franchise chain and should be kept. I started editing but it seemed futile if the article is to be deleted. If not, I will come back and edit. Kooky2 (talk) 21:13, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete: There is significant coverage in independent, reliable sources here, but the other cited examples are merely WP:ROUTINE and hence this fails WP:CORPDEPTH. It also fails WP:GNG, which requires multiple independent sources and significant coverage. The coverage that does exist, moreover, is in a regional publication not national or international in scope, which is preferred but not required under CORPDEPTH. I did a search and could not find any additional sources to cite that would enhance its position under the GNG or CORPDEPTH. I think it's likely that there will be further significant coverage in the future and it could then warrant an article, but that's WP:CRYSTAL. --Batard0 (talk) 08:49, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
keep: I find myself hanging in the balance on this one but overall I'm inclined to keep. For some reason I like this page more than I should like a page that is just about an ice cream parlour in Tuscan. I see the reason for concern about being promotional, but there seems to be notability with the awards and the information does have some good references. Fireflo (talk) 11:59, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Four locations do not make this a notable chain. Had it been larger, I'd agree with keeping it, but there are lots and lots of food businesses which are larger that most people here would probably agree are not notable. --Nlu (talk) 16:19, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There are three short but probably acceptable articles from the Arizona Daily Star, and one from the Tuscon Citizen, and a few local awards. If there was just a little bit more coverage outside the local area, it would be enough to keep. But I scraped every news and book database I have and found nothing, and nothing in specialized business databases like ABI/INFORM Trade & Industry. ReferenceUSA has a routeine phone book listing but nothing more. The company and its founders also can't claim any genuine innovations or influence on their field; their notability is only that they're pretty good at what they do and moderately successful. Close, but not quite enough. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 18:37, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to University Centre at Blackburn College#Students' Union. (non-admin closure) — ΛΧΣ21™ 13:43, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Blackburn College Students' Union[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. Local student bodies are, in my opinion, not encyclopedic.This article has no independent, reliable sources at all to prove notability. The Banner _talk 19:23, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Such bodies are not notable.--Charles (talk) 09:56, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 20:06, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 20:06, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 20:06, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to University Centre at Blackburn College#Students' Union because it's a possible search term. I don't want to make a broad judgement on an entire class of articles, but I agree that this particular student union is not notable. As for sources, I found this, but one mention does not a notable subject make. Braincricket (talk) 03:24, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to University Centre at Blackburn College#Students' Union . The student's union is not separately notable. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:47, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 17:54, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

REB Technologies[edit]

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

Promotional article that fails WP:CORPDEPTH. All of the sources are press releases or publicity materials from company's own website. I have done a Google News search and found nothing more to establish notability under WP:CORPDEPTH. Logical Cowboy (talk) 15:57, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. AdventurousSquirrel (talk) 18:19, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TBr and ley 18:54, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all 9 hits in google news are press releases/related promotions. 05:25, 14 October 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by SalHamton (talk • contribs)
Delete as per nom and SalHamton. -- P 1 9 9 ✉ 16:27, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:01, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Superfeedr[edit]

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

This is suggest a piece of info and not an article. It can possibly kept if the info is raised to the level of article and notability is established. Hindustanilanguage (talk) 06:42, 11 October 2012 (UTC).[reply]

Keep, notable company for those working in the field. I needed a quick NPOV summary of what they do, couldn't find one, so I found out and wrote one. Obviously it's a stub and needs expanding; I hope others will be able to do that. I don't understand why a stub should be marked for deletion just because it is still a stub. Silas S. Brown (talk) 12:01, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I found 2 sources[7][8] very quickly but it needs more. --Colapeninsula (talk) 16:48, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:14, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:14, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 11:48, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Thine Antique Pen (talk) 18:34, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Since this notice was added, Hindustanilanguage modified his comment above by adding "It can possibly kept if the info is raised to the level of article and notability is established." I responded by changing my "I don't understand why being a "piece of info" would be reason to delete a stub" into "I don't understand why a stub should be marked for deletion just because it is still a stub." Silas S. Brown (talk) 11:02, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non-notable, fails WP:CORP. Only 1 self-reference. -- P 1 9 9 ✉ 16:34, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've now added in the other two references that Colapeninsula found. But I'm still hoping that others can improve the article. It's currently a stub. Doesn't stub status grant more leniency? Is there a policy on this? Thanks. Silas S. Brown (talk) 22:05, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: fails WP:CORPDEPTH as coverage has been limited to WP:ROUTINE. The one article that goes beyond routine in Techcrunch says the company was "randomly selected" for coverage. On that basis, this ought not to be considered. I did a search and couldn't come up with any significant coverage of the company outside of routine announcements about products, etc. --Batard0 (talk) 08:15, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - covered in depth by independent, reliable sources, thus meeting WP:N. Coverage cannot be construed as "routine", except in the "It's routine to cover the goings-on at notable companies". Wily D 08:40, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: WilyD, if there is in-depth coverage by independent, reliable sources, can you add them into the page, because currently notability has not been established. I'm inclined to agree with the proposal to delete unless you can come up with the kind of source support that Batard0 has suggested. Fireflo (talk) 12:06, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedily deleted by User:RHaworth under criterion A10 as an article duplicating Sectarian violence in Pakistan. (Non-admin closure) "Pepper" @ 10:41, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Shia Genocide In Pakistan[edit]

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

Appears to be a pretty POV and completely unsourced essay. I'm not excluding that the title may (remotely) describe a topic that is notable, but its contents (and probably the title as well) seem to need WP:TNT. Tijfo098 (talk) 18:34, 9 October 2012‎ (UTC)[reply]

After looking around some more, it looks like a WP:POVFORK of Sectarian violence in Pakistan. The "genocide" title seems too POV to even use as a redirect. I've tagged it with CSD A10. Tijfo098 (talk) 19:11, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. MBisanz ^talk 18:35, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hebenon[edit]

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

Hebanon is not a word, the only occurrence is in Shakespeare, where the word is "Hebona". This page appears to be the result of a typo in the Hamlet quote. Edmund Blackadder (talk) 17:32, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, surprisingly. I wouldn't think that there would be much room for expansion for an article on a Shakespearean hapax legomenon, but it seems I may be wrong. Searches of both books and scholarly articles reveals that a strangely large amount of attention has been paid to this one-off plant reference, in everything from language studies to a 1950 article in The Journal of Laryngology & Otology to more recent botany and medicine journals. Even today, there's evidently quite a bit of open debate on the topic. As for the hebona/hebenon distinction and the proper title for the article, the former appears in the Quartos, the latter in the Folios. Hebenon seems rather more common in the analytical literature, however. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 19:11, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 20:03, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organisms-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 20:03, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Added a bunch of sources. Interesting topic. The sources allow for a big expansion of the article on theories about the identity of the poison. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 03:33, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There are tons of sources from the 19th century, all full-text. Google "hebona site:archive.org" --Green Cardamom (talk) 04:19, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I don't know if this is a good reason to keep it. However, if I came across this word in Shakespeare or elsewhere, I would first search Wikipedia for information that went beyond a dictionary definition and would be surprised and disappointed not to find a full explanation and various linked sources. Kooky2 (talk) 21:36, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to The_Simpsons_(franchise)#Films. (non-admin closure) — ΛΧΣ21™ 13:42, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Simpsons: Access All Areas[edit]

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

A proposed deletion of this article was avoided with the suggestion of a merger, but no appropriate merger target has been located. A search for reliable, secondary sources reveals an insufficient amount of significant coverage. This article fails Wikipedia's notability guidelines for films. Neelix (talk) 17:03, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Not a sufficient topic to support a full page piece. Insufficient extant sourcing to clear the notability bar. Carrite (talk) 17:40, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to The_Simpsons_(franchise)#Films - The article shouldn't be deleted as it seems to be somewhat significant to the series and their 20th anniversary. However, Google News found little sources aside from that one review to expand the article. There is a brief article here which mentions Simon Cowell and Hugh Hefner as two of the participants, the airdate and channel. There is also another article here that briefly mentions the documentary. I also found one brief mention here that repeats Simon Cowell and Hugh Hefner as participants. Google Books found zero results. SwisterTwister talk 22:53, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - Portillo (talk) 05:55, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 19:59, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect - Not notable on its own, but can be covered elsewhere. Dough 48 72 15:38, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think a sentence in The Simpsons (season 20) about this documentary can be added. Nergaal (talk) 19:47, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Page history preserved for attribution at Talk:Slender: The Eight Pages/Elementary. Mark Arsten (talk) 17:56, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Elementary (Slender)[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

This is a procedural AFD, 2nd one for this article[9]. The first was improperly redirected in the middle of the AFD, then a non-admin improperly closed it early as a merge, when it wasn't merged and there wasn't a single vote to merge except his own. I've already left a msg on the closer's talk page about this. Non-notable game map. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 15:56, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The game that this map was made for may be notable, but this individual level does not appear to be. I can find no reliable references to establish any sort of notability. Rorshacma (talk) 17:31, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Yeah, sorry for the improper closure. Anyway... Non-notable map. Zappa O Mati 21:46, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I also nominated Mansion (Slender), after it also got improperly closed by me... WP:Articles for deletion/Mansion (Slender) (2nd nomination) Zappa O Mati 22:00, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 19:57, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk). — Frankie (talk) 19:57, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Non-notable gamecruft. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 12:16, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Text from this article was copied (WP:Copying within Wikipedia) into Slender: The Eight Pages by User:Rhain1999. The Slenderman's Shadow maps section was removed two days later, but the content is visible in the page history. User:Joshdavies747 wrote the majority of this article, but minor contributions were made by other users. I suggest moving the page to Talk:Slender: The Eight Pages/Elementary per WP:Merge and delete#Move to subpage of talk page. Flatscan (talk) 04:13, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Wily D 08:35, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sushi 4004[edit]

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

Does not pass WP:GNG. The album seems to be just a playlist compiled by a non-notable person. Del_♉sion23 (talk) 14:19, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 18:33, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Le Hammond Inferno also appears to be notable, but in any case an AMG write-up normally hints to notability. See [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16]. More is very likely available offline, probably from Italy or Germany — Frankie (talk) 23:13, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 15:27, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It's a CD not just a playlist, as you could easily find out by looking it up on Amazon[17] (maybe you're too young to know what a CD is, if so I apologise). Having said that, obscure compilations on slightly-cultish German record labels are not likely to be obviously notable: there don't seem to be any actual reviews online, just passing mentions. --Colapeninsula (talk) 17:29, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Well that snide "not knowing what a CD is" remark was definitely unneeded. Del_♉sion23 (talk) 09:45, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per reviews by The Wire [18], NPR's All Things Considered [19], german mag Zitty [20], allmusic [21] & per frankie generally. 86.44.49.108 (talk) 00:50, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Frankie and IP. Seems to meet coverage guidelines under WP:GNG and WP:NALBUMS with the sources cited. --Batard0 (talk) 08:07, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List of centenarians (miscellaneous). MBisanz ^talk 18:38, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Bridget Dirrane[edit]

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

Biographical article abour someone but with no claim to notabilty. She met some notable people, but notabilty doesn't rub off like that. Article claims she was a centenarian - not in itself rare these days - in fact she died aged 109, so not even notable there. Emeraude (talk) 11:03, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Possible redirect to List of centenarians (miscellaneous) - The article never indicates her significance aside from her 100+ age but Google News archives provided enough to support a redirect. Regarding the article's current sources, the first reference (rte.ie) hardly mentions details aside from becoming "the oldest woman in the world to receive a university degree", which may be notable, but I believe this would be insufficient. The second reference appears to be a dead link, possible due to a URL error. Google News archives Ireland provided much of the same references but a few of them are different. However, what concerns me about the redirect is that the article never mentions her actual occupation aside from small jobs such as housekeeper. SwisterTwister talk 20:01, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 18:00, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 18:00, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 15:26, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non-notable. -- P 1 9 9 ✉ 16:41, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:56, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Xinzheng East Railway Station[edit]

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

Cannot find any references on the Internet, and it is not a railway station on Shiwu HSR. 寿司猫 (talk) 03:22, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Rewrite Searching for 新郑东站, it seems it is used as an alternative name for the Zhengzhou gaotie station, which formally speaking is 郑州东站 and already has an article Zhengzhou East Railway Station. Easy to see the confusion, as many HSR stations have the "xin" prefix.

On the other hand, 新郑火车站 (Google maps link) is a real station, but in the older Jingguang railroad, not Shiwu HSR. It's a fairly old station (1905), clearly notable for being in a major city in a major railway line. So maybe just rename? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.222.164.96 (talk) 16:16, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 17:36, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 17:36, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

- 'Xinzheng' is a county-level city of Zhengzhou, 'Xin' does not mean 'new'. Xinzheng Station is different from this station.寿司猫 (talk) 11:07, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 15:24, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

- Xinzheng East (新郑东站) is the name of the Xinzheng station, it is not the Zhengzhou station. Built in 1976, according to Baidu, which is by no means reliable - where did you get 1905 from? Also, I believe Shiwu line is part of the Jingguang line, so no contradiction there. Kraikk (talk) 07:37, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak keep Okay, da capo. When you search for 新郑东站石武高铁， there appears a largish number of discussion groups, blogs etc using the term. If you read them, it seems that they are making a mistake, using 新郑东站 for the Zhengzhou gaotie station, which is officially Zhengzhou dong. The mistake probably comes from the "xin" used in many gaotie stations (those posts are probably not by Henan locals, so unfamiliar with Xinzheng as a location). My guess is that the creator of the article made the same mistake. It doesn't matter. It is a mistake to say that Xinzheng Dong is a shiwu HSR station.

Now, a separate issue. Xinzheng Station and/or Xinzheng East station (Found 1905 date for Xinzheng station in a not-super-reliable source. Not sure if Xinzheng East is a separate newer station, a relocation of the old station, or an alternative name) are real stations of the Jingguang line (which is a distinct and separate line from the Shiwu HSR, running on its own rails, although the two lines are sort of parallel. Shiwu line is part of the "Jingguangshengang" HSR line, which is often called the Jingguang PDL. It is rather confusing). I thought Xinzheng was just a suburb of Zhengzhou, but it doesn't matter if it is a fully separate entity. I think the general consensus is that all stations of a major railway line are notable (and will generally get mentioned often in third-party materials). I am, however, not sure whether this is true. IF that's the case, it may be okay to keep the article and just change the information to fit the facts of Xinzheng East station. Xinzheng East (Jingguang line) station may also be notable in its own right, of course. I just noticed there is an ethnography book about it, when you search for it in English. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.166.7.155 (talk) 12:30, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless significant coverage in reliable secondary sources can be found. I'm incapable of searching in Chinese, but from the above it appears that what does exist (blogs, forums) are not reliable sources and thus can't be considered as part of this discussion. Is there any discussion in books or widely circulated newspapers? This would help establish notability under the WP:GNG guidelines. --Batard0 (talk) 08:04, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I simply do not see any point for this entry in WP. If there is a reason to develop the page based on new information coming to light, the page can be easily recreated. Nothing here to constitute a loss to anyone in the removal of the page. Fireflo (talk) 12:09, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:28, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Beyond (2012 TV series)[edit]

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

Unsourced entry on future television show; fails WP:CRYSTAL. Prod declined without comment. Hairhorn (talk) 01:34, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - At the article's beginning, it would have been a case of WP:CRYSTAL, but December is only three months away so it is possible that the series will premiere. Considering that I am not fluent with Chinese, would another user confirm if any of these Google HK news results are useful? SwisterTwister talk 02:25, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Someone does need to check possible refs, but "might be notable in the future" isn't really a reason to keep. Hairhorn (talk) 11:56, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:06, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:06, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 01:27, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Incubate for a short while. As its airdate is approaching, we can place this where it will benefit from regular editing until ready for a return to article space. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 05:47, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 15:24, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The same thing happened with It Takes Two (Singaporean TV series) not long ago. Why not wait a bit longer? The airing date is approaching and there will be more press coverage by then. - Acsiann88 (talk) 11:16, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's a good a idea. Corn cheese (talk) 23:34, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Userfy: This isn't a WP:CRYSTAL situation because there's a definite airing date. Yet where are the reliable secondary sources to satisfy WP:GNG? I can find none, but I'm not capable of searching in Chinese. I would argue keep if substantial Chinese sourcing can be found. Otherwise userfy unless and until it attracts significant notice following airing. --Batard0 (talk) 08:00, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unfortunately no references and no details of when the programme will air means that there is nothing of substance by which to establish notability. If a reliable reference could be given I would change my vote to keep, but without any source, the information on the page has to be regarded as unreliable.Fireflo (talk) 11:05, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 14:09, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Gin Cooley[edit]

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

Non-notable person, fails WP:GNG, WP:ENT, WP:MUSICBIO. References used are largely self-submitted works to the like of Flickr, Youtube and Facebook. Hack (talk) 15:17, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree. There are only 4 sources that are pages operated by the subject. The other 24 sources consist of various sites. Not to mention several are being added on a daily basis. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lovelyduckling (talk • contribs) 15:39, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

— Note to closing admin: Lovelyduckling (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this XfD. Dori ☾Talk ☯ Contribs☽ 00:52, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - This page should not be deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.88.10.109 (talk) 18:32, 9 October 2012 (UTC) — 71.88.10.109 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Delete. None of the references are reliable sources. References listed are 19(!) sites promoting her songs, such as Amazon, Grooveshark, iTunes and Youtube. There's also (as mentioned above) some sites run by the subject, as well as some blogs and picture collections advertising her as one of several candidates for something called "Hometown Hotties". Also, there is a single reference which only points to an image from google image search. Not even close to WP:RS, so delete the whole thing unless someone can provide sources and show notability! Bjelleklang - talk 21:03, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There don't appear to be any verifiable and reliable independent third party sources with significant coverage. Dori ☾Talk ☯ Contribs☽ 00:52, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - other than the fact that the article miserably fails the manuals of style in almost every way, none of the sources seem like reliable sources. Can't see how the subject meets WP:GNG. Stalwart111 (talk) 03:48, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 19:51, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 19:51, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I do not think it should be deleted, I think it just needs improvement. There are several 3rd party sources. Lovelyduckling (talk) 10:04, 11 October 2012‎

You need to understand that meeting WP:GNG can usually be done with 3-4 sources. Ref-spamming your article like you have today, does not help your cause. No-one is going to trawl through 50 badly-formatted references in the hope of finding one or two good ones. You are making it almost impossible for other editors to make an educated judgement about the article. You might think that by adding dozens and dozens of "references" that other editors will just "assume" WP:GNG has ben met and will consider the article worth keeping. They won't because you have to demonstrate that you have met the WP:BURDEN of proof and white-washing the article with rubbish "references" is not the way to do so. Would strongly suggest you have a read of WP:COI, WP:SPA, WP:OWN and WP:MOS by the way. Cheers, Stalwart111 (talk) 04:56, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as there aren't any verifiable and reliable independent third party references with significant coverage. Thine Antique Pen (talk) 11:25, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 14:08, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Kenneth Law[edit]

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

Non-notable music teacher, as far as I can tell, but not my specialoist subject. This came up as a random article and I tidied it up a bit, but then realised that nothing seems to attest to his notabilty. As I understand the US education system, associate professor means he's low grade; his performance details seem to refer only to local ensembles (apart from Phoenix Players which I am sure is a bad link - the Phoenix Players with the Wikipedia articel are in Kenya!) and he appears to be no more than a school music teacher. Also worth noting, the page was originally created on 22 August 2006 by.... Kennethlaw . Emeraude (talk) 15:02, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 19:34, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 19:34, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

weak delete Well, I found a nice profile of the article subject here. [22]. However it's pretty local so not enough to save the article by itself.... if someone could find one more article on the subject with more than just a mention of the concert time, it would probably change my vote to keep though.... Sailsbystars (talk) 20:48, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for lack of evidence of passing WP:MUSICBIO, WP:PROF, or WP:GNG. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:15, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 14:03, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Scott Hammond[edit]

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

not a notable person no proof of notability is shown, the person has no awards or publications seems like a self made page Redsky89 (talk) 14:51, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I'm not seeing where there's any notability here. A search brings up pages that aren't really usable as RS, being blogs and the like by non-notable persons and such. The only link that I could find that could be used is a very short blog entry that's not only more about Polaroid ceasing to produce instant cameras but also is written by someone who is a friend of Hammond. There's just no notability here.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 05:16, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 19:32, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 19:32, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I should note that Tokyogirl79 removed links that were formerly displayed, here, here and here but, no loss, because they were insignificant to establish notability. When I searched "Scott Hammond photographer" with Google News archives, it found results here, here and here for what appears to be a New Zealand-based photographer, but there isn't any evidence that this Scott Hammond has ties with New Zealand. Google Books found one result here supporting his birth year but the content reads like it may have been copied from Wikipedia thus a possible self-reference. I also found this link mentioning his "The Lovely Road" project. Agreed, this photographer is not notable to Wikipedia standards at this time. SwisterTwister talk 22:03, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 14:03, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Staci Thorn[edit]

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

Fails WP:PORNBIO. Award won is a scene award. Also fails the general notability guidelines due to lack of coverage by reliable sources. Morbidthoughts (talk) 14:49, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. Morbidthoughts (talk) 21:19, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:42, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 03:27, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails PORNBIO with only scene-related awards and nominations. Fails GNG. No substantial reliable source coverage found in search. • Gene93k (talk) 14:18, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 14:02, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Chang Tzu Ping[edit]

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

Unverified and implausible (a Chinese man found by American soldiers in his 40s would been over 100 by this point as no American soldier has been in China since the 1940s), but even if verified would still have notability questions. Delete. --Nlu (talk) 14:23, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Hoax alarm buzzing. A pure GNG failure at a minimum. Carrite (talk) 21:46, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Just watched the video. Fake as fuck. Carrite (talk) 21:47, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 19:29, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 19:29, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Chang is described in a book by Lee M. Silver. So I'm inclined to think it's real. Braincricket (talk) 03:58, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Braincricket (talk) 04:21, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Even if his story is real, there is virtually no evidence that this person is or was notable. The available sources consist of a You-Tube video (not acceptable to Wikipedia), a supposed TV appearance supported only by a website (not a reliable source), and a sentence in a book. I found no evidence that his surgery, reportedly in the US, attracted any news coverage at all. Certainly there are some people born with anomalies, but they aren't notable unless they receive the usual significant coverage by multiple reliable sources. --MelanieN (talk) 20:31, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete due to lack of significant coverage by reliable sources. MelanieN said it best. Braincricket (talk) 12:10, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 14:03, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Little Lucknow[edit]

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

This AfD is sort of a complicated one. Individually, the article for Little Lucknow and for Nitya Prakash are not notable enough for individual articles. I had done some marked improvements to the author's article and redirected the book page to the author's article because together, they formed enough of an article to where I could justify leaving it despite twinges of guilt over some of the sources on the author's article not really passing RS. HOWEVER, the edits have been reverted with the justification that I was not to do any changes to the article whatsoever without any full conversations on the article talk page, essentially telling me that I was not allowed to make any changes or make any redirects. Now the reason I'm listing this here is because the notability for either article was still fairly shaky even after merging the two together. I'd like to get a consensus on this, also because there's a language barrier. The biggest issue here is that the book is decidedly non-notable despite the "sources" on the page. Before anyone says "clearly notable, look at the sources", I'll list as to why most of them are non-usable. I'm listing Prakash with this because quite frankly, he has an equally big problem with sourcing. Tokyogirl79 (talk) 14:15, 9 October 2012 (UTC) I am also nominating the following related pages for the reasons stated above:[reply]

Here's a rundown of the sourcing for Little Lucknow:

[23] This appears to be user submitted, not written by anyone actually on the news staff. Per parts of the site, anyone can submit their own news article, so it's very easy for anyone to submit an article. Such user submitted content is rarely to never usable as a reliable source and we know nothing about the submitter's qualifications. Nine times out of ten, when I've found links of this nature, it's by someone that is somehow involved with the author or the author's publisher. Not saying that's the case here, but I don't see where this is reliable. I left it on the author's article despite having concerns of reliability.
[24] Scribido Magazine doesn't appear to be notable or reliable per Wikipedia's guidelines. It's also one of those sites where anyone can join up and publish articles. It looks to be sort of a social media-esque site. At the most this could be something under EL, but not much else.
[25] Another article where the site doesn't seem reliable per Wikipedia's guidelines. I also want to note that the sections of this are almost identical to how the article for Prakash was originally written before I revised it, meaning that odds are it was written by the same people who wrote the WIkipedia article in an attempt to publicize the author.
[26] Spectral Hues is not a reliable source, being a non-notable book site. At the most, this could be listed under EL.
[27] This is one of the few articles that could be seen as somewhat reliable, which is why I left it on the author's article.
[28] Now before anyone says "hey, this is CNN", it's not. It's iCNN, which is a place where anyone can submit a blog entry and these entries are not vetted by CNN. If they're very, very lucky it might be selected for coverage, which this wasn't. In this past using iCNN has been a trick some have used to try to bolster sources by creating their own articles (or getting others to create them) and using them as sources. This is not reliable in any stretch of the word.
[29] This is a press release, and press releases are not usable as reliable sources ever since they're released by the author or publisher.
[30] This is another one of those sources that could actually be used as a RS. It looks to be relatively legit.
[31] Non-notable book blog review, which are not usable as a reliable source except in very rare and extreme circumstances.

Now this is the rundown of the current sources on the article for the book. As it is, there's really not a lot to use on the author's article as it is. We really only have about two sources that could somewhat be usable as RS, ([32], [33]). That is not enough to show notability for the book.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 14:15, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Now as far as the author goes, the only source not listed above is this one: [34] I had left it on the author's page, but this is just a video of him giving a lecture. It's not news coverage of him. It's not an article about him. It's just a video of him giving a lecture. When you get down to it, there's only two sources to show any sort of notability and that's not enough to pass WP:GNG in any format, whether it's for a person or a book. I figured that it'd just be better to bring it here and let it get hashed out in AfD. There were a lot of other links on the original content of the author's article, none of which showed notability in the slightest, being either IMDb-esque listings for non-notable films, links to Goodreads, links to non-notable blog entries, links to various dodgy sites... none of the links showed the slightest bit of notability, although anyone curious can see the original state of the article here: [35] There was also a big problem with neutrality and promotional speak with the original format of the author's article and that exists now on the book article. Neither article is notable enough and since I'm sort of getting my hand pushed, I'm nominating them as I probably should've done in the first place.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 14:20, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Anbu121 (talk me) 19:57, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Anbu121 (talk me) 19:57, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Anbu121 (talk me) 19:57, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for failing WP:AUTHOR and WP:BK. Qworty (talk) 01:42, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Daily News & Analysis, July 23, 2012 is a detailed source. Merinews August 26, 2012 is a good source. However, that is not enough to meet WP:GNG. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 02:55, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:34, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Enterprise search marketing[edit]

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

This article doesn't make much sense. I still don't know what enterprise search marketing is supposed to be after reading this. It is also basically an orphan and don't have any references. Not even sure that "Enterprise search marketing" is a valid term. Runarb (talk) 14:15, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No published sources to verify that such a concept exists. --Anbu121 (talk me) 19:33, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 19:25, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 19:25, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Into Search engine marketing as this is an emerging field, see Google Analytics Premium @SmithAndTeam (talk) 16:03, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Do you have any third party sources to verify that such a concept as "Enterprise Search Marketing" exists? I can't find anything relevant on Google, but maybe it's just that I don't know exactly what to look for... The only real reference I have found so fare it this . That do mention the term in the heading, but don’t explain what Enterprise Search Marketing is supposed to be. Runarb (talk) 09:40, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Here: Neo@Ogilvy is a digital advertising agency that was acquired by Ogilvy & Mather. Since they call it Enterprise Search Marketing, that is enough for now, as the term will emerge over the next few years. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Smithandteam (talk • contribs) 01:04, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: No evidence of meeting WP:GNG criteria for reliable secondary-source coverage, and none could be found. That the term "will emerge over the next few years" is not a reason for inclusion now per WP:CRYSTAL. The inclusion of the term on the websites of a smattering of marketing agencies is not sufficient coverage in secondary sources; these are primary sources, since they're companies offering the service. --Batard0 (talk) 07:50, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: If ther term is a notable one then there should be some coverage in reliable secondary sources. Without at least one of these, there doesn't seem to be any justification for this page. Fireflo (talk) 11:08, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Following improvements to the article by CW & TK. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:07, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Zeitgeist[edit]

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

This is not an encyclopedia article. It has only one source, a dictionary, and that is exactly where this content belongs: a dictionary. There is nothing encyclopedic to say about this topic. Let us review: this article consists of a pronunciation, a translation (since it is a loanword) to English, a brief definition, and a sentence of etymology. That's it. All of those components are elements of a dictionary entry, not a comprehensive encyclopedia article. Powers ^T 14:08, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - got to agree, it is only a dictionary definition here so falls into WP:NOT. Sionk (talk) 21:23, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to wikt:zeitgeist and move Zeitgeist (disambiguation) to this location. Agreed it fails WP:DICDEF in current state. ~~No hope of expansion into a full article.~~ [struck following Bearian's comment] It could become a full article on the concept of Zeitgeist as used in psychology, but currently it doesn't even hint at that. —Quiddity (talk) 00:31, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 19:23, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - per WP:BEFORE - of course this can be expanded. Whole books have been written on the topic. Bearian (talk) 22:04, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I wish we could enjoin editors from citing WP:BEFORE without actually citing an example of information that was missed. Heck, we could enjoin it completely, since you have no way of knowing whether or not I investigated for relevant sources beforehand. Suffice it to say that I remain unconvinced of the potential for an encyclopedic article that differs from all of our existing article on similar topics. Powers ^T 18:07, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It's in fact a valid loanword and all I shall criticize aboout the article is that it has not exceeded stub's state. "Zeitgeist" is a notable subject. SirAppleby (talk) 16:49, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Evidence for that, please? It's no fair to just assert it's notable without providing evidence. Powers ^T 18:23, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- As the proposer says, word (or loanword) definitions are suitable for dictionaries (or wiktionaries), not Wikipedia. Sionk (talk) 19:48, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps this text could be combined with the disambig? IRWolfie- (talk) 01:48, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) Keep We have nineteen articles on the Zeitgeist (disambiguation) page, and editors want to turn Zeitgeist into a red link? There is no case for deletion of either the title or the edit history, and any other issues are a matter for ordinary editing, not AfD discussion. Unscintillating (talk) 01:49, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I initially proposed a move of the disambiguation page to the base name, and was told to take it to AfD. Now I try it as an AfD and you tell me to handle it through normal editing (e.g., a move discussion). WHICH IS IT? Powers ^T 02:05, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. A dictionary definition. AndyTheGrump (talk) 12:44, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is a powerful abstract concept. For example, An Introduction to the History of Psychology says "Together, these and other factors create a Zeitgeist, or a spirit of the times, which many historians consider vital to the understanding of any historical development.". Such abstract topics are difficult to write upon but our editing policy is to retain them for development over time. Warden (talk) 12:55, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Any chance you (or anyone) could put together a single paragraph covering that? I agree it has potential, but there isn't even a hint of that in the current article, which hasn't had a single edit since the afd tagging. :/ —Quiddity (talk) 20:07, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - I have made some edits which may help. It's interesting to find that Hegel never actually used the word, despite what many sources say. Warden (talk) 12:48, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A dictionary definition. --MeUser42 (talk) 15:32, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Anybody fluent in German who could just translate their more-in-depth version of the article? Apparently they still write articles over at de.wiki.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 23:04, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Or Spanish...they've got a pretty good article as well. I added a sentence on Hegel and started a "History" section p b p 23:56, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: My knowledge of the concept of "Zeitgeist" is Georg Hegel came up with the term, and then some other guys expanded on the term. The term was important enough for my college European history professor to devote a part of a lecture to it. You could have enough information on the history and changing usage of the term to have enough content to satisfy WP:NOT p b p 23:41, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. p b p 23:44, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Northamerica1000^(talk) 08:16, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Article has now been expanded, it not just a simple definition. Dream Focus 09:49, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Generally recognized as an important concept. "If an issue does not have a snowball's chance in hell of being accepted by a certain process, there's no need to run it through the entire process, WP:SNOW. User:Fred Bauder Talk 12:03, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Do you have any evidence that it's an important concept, one that isn't sufficiently covered by other similar articles? Or just bald evidenceless assertions like every other "Keep" voter? Powers ^T 13:26, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - I don't like the characterization of my framework for expanding this article as a "bald assertion". The article has over a dozen interwikis, many of which have four or more paragraphs of prose, so I'm all but certain that there can be reliable sources found to substantiate the topic. I'm not sure we can invoke SNOW yet, though p b p 13:31, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Have a look at how many article link to it. It's a very important concept. As it stands the page is a stub and hopefully someone will step up to develop more. I've added a bit and Warden has added a bit. But time is needed to fully read sources and put the material into context. If this isn't encyclopedic, I don't know what is. Truthkeeper (talk) 13:35, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is beyond the typical dictionary definition. As others have said, it's an important and well-known concept. This should be easy to expand (actually, I'd think more could be said about this concept than Pièce de résistance). OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 15:56, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Punctuation. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:57, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Puncutation[edit]

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

A made up word, unfortunately. No references in this article to support the existence (let alone notability) of the word, nothing on Google apart from this article and many misspellings of "punctuation", and more importantly, nothing in the Oxford English Dictionary--and the OED's etymology for the word pun directly contradicts the claim that it is a shortened form of puncutation: "Origin unknown. Perhaps shortened < punctilio n. or its etymon Italian puntiglio". — maestrosync ^talk — 13:48, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Punctuation as a plausible misspelling. Powers ^T 14:10, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete G3 as a blatant hoax. The only parts of this content that are remotely factual are not directly related to the purported subject. I'll leave it to others whether this is a sufficiently plausible typo to warrant leaving a redirect, but there is no need to retain the current material. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 16:24, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete We shouldn't keep typos as they are unnecessary and confusing. Warden (talk) 22:12, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete then redirect per Powers. --Nlu (talk) 04:31, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 19:21, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - made up in one day. The correct term is holorime. Bearian (talk) 22:03, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as a hoax. The source treats the pun, which, as maestrosync points out, is not related to the made-up word puncutation. I daresay Melner28, whose only edit was to create this page, was having a laugh. Cnilep (talk) 02:40, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - Sounds like a misspelling. Corn cheese (talk) 18:48, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Mark Arsten (talk) 13:29, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Pakorn Chatborirak[edit]

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

No evidence of notability. There are just two references, one being a blog, and the other a link to an advertising video in which he may appear, but there is no evidence of coverage about him. (Note: A PROD notice was removed in July by an IP editor, who gave no reason for the removal.) JamesBWatson (talk) 13:34, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I agree that the current English article is a crawling abomination, but there are a host of references in the Thai language article that support notability. Stuartyeates (talk) 17:08, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Can you give a few examples of the references in the Thai language article that support notability? (I trust you did check that they do so, and did not simply assume that, because there's a large number of them, they must show notability.) I have looked at a sample of them, with the aid of Google translation, and I am not convinced. There's this FaceBook page, which without even bothering with a translation, does not look remotely as though it would show notability, even if it were a reliable source, which of course it isn't. Then there's another FaceBook page. Then there's this one, which is not about Pakorn Chatborirak, and mentions him only in an incidental capacity. There are pages like this one, which may be a reliable source, but it's not clear to me that it is. And we have things like this, which at present is a dead link, so it's impossible to assess how much notability it would have conferred. I am willing to believe that there may be suitable sources, and if there are then I will happily withdraw the nomination, but you need to specify what they are, not just say that there are "a host" of them, without actually pointing to any of them. JamesBWatson (talk) 19:36, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please consider keep to this article again. Don't delete article for Pakorn Chatborirak. This article have updating for references about reliable data that I understand, link for references are english language only, or not? Jutathit (talk) 7:08, 10 October 2012

You can add references to Thai-language content, they don't have to be in English. Stuartyeates (talk) 00:25, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I think that article for Pakorn Chatborirak have developing for quality and add link to references as soon as. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tuktuktukjang (talk • contribs)

Keep. Article for Pakorn Chatborirak is adding to other references about him and I can removed frame of notification message on top this article, or not? Jutathit (talk) 13:19, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 19:19, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Thailand-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 19:19, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 13:26, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nathan smart[edit]

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

Non notable singer. No coverage at all beyond social networks etc. Fails WP:NOTABLE among others. Harry the Dog WOOF 10:44, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I think one shall not shrug off social networks as they do posess some significance nowadays. However, I would require references, still. So unless reliable references are provided I shall stick with"delete". CeesBakker (talk) 11:02, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I agree that social networks and even blogs can have provide a bit of support proving the subject is known. However, I scanned the internet and came up with nothing but social networks and video sites. If this singer gets significant critical reviews, news coverage, etc., in the future I would support having an article on him. Also, I think any article about a personality needs considerably more biographical info than appears here.Bill Pollard (talk) 11:13, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 19:11, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 19:11, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete on the merits; Bill has it, I think. If there were notability here, we'd be seeing more coverage about the artist, and that's missing. Usual Caveats apply, of course; it's early in this young man's career, and it's possible (even likely) that he will get a big break and become fully notable. In that case, an article would certainly be warranted. But he's not there yet. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 19:28, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note also that, until a few minutes ago, the AFD tag at the article was a redlink pointing to an empty debate (and not to this one). Consensus seems clear, but if the reviewing admin is more comfortable relisting due to the error, I don't disagree. Hell, I almost relisted myself. FYI. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 19:30, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. I've speedied this article as a non-notable publication. Additionally, the article was being written in a way that portrayed the author negatively. – GorillaWarfare (talk) 20:40, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

London Leather[edit]

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

Doesn't look like a notable publication at all -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:21, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 19:09, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 19:09, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Found a Press Release [36], but it's not an independent source. Other than that, no apparent book reviews by reliable publications (newspapers, magazines). Self-published is a problem but not insurmountable if there was evidence of book reviews and so on - Fifty Shades of Grey was originally self-published online as fan fiction. Come back when it's achieved popularity. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 03:04, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Balanced headcount, marginal sources; there's no way to make a silk purse out of this. Wily D 08:15, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

List of college football head coaches with non-consecutive tenure[edit]

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

Non-notable list. There is nothing unique about this list. It's basically an indiscriminate collection of information. GrapedApe (talk) 20:12, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. Paul McDonald (talk) 01:30, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep passes WP:LISTN--the topic of "returning coaches" is often discussed in primary media outlets such as ESPN, Sports Illustrated, etc. A good number of articles on Wikipedia link to this list. The list is indeed uniquque as no other list or article on Wikipedia contains this information. List clearly passes tests described per WP:DISCRIMINATE essay and the definition of "discriminate" in Wiktionary. Inclusion in the list is clearly defined in the list header and it is very specific.--Paul McDonald (talk) 01:40, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

— Note to closing admin: Paulmcdonald (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this XfD. —Bagumba (talk) 02:40, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I disagree...I don't think it passes WP:LISTN as none of the sources in the article establish that this is a topic that receives widespread independent coverage. Additionally, per WP:NOTSTATSBOOK, under what Wikipedia is not, I think that this would be characterized under criterion 3 which discourages excessive listings of statistics. Thus, I would conclude that this topic does not have sufficient notability and probably should be deleted. Go Phightins! (talk) 01:46, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Several Responses

While the list is far from complete and sources are not all provided, it is more than reasonable to assume that any news article about a returning coach would cover that the coach is "returning" such as Bill Snyder Returns and is continued to be brought up later on such as in this article among many others on Bill Snyder.
Long and sprawling lists of statistics may be confusing to readers and reduce the readability and neatness of our articles. N/A List format, although long, is not confusing and does not reduce readability. The list is very neat.
In addition, articles should contain sufficient explanatory text to put statistics within the article in their proper context for a general reader. DONE header is clear and when possible, notes are included.
In cases where this may be necessary... consider using tables to enhance the readability of lengthy data lists. DONE tables are used.

The first point covers the notability question, the second through fourth cover "criterion 3" of WP:NOTSTATSBOOK.--Paul McDonald (talk) 02:24, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Several Responses to your responses

Where is it established, specifically that this is a notable topic via "multiple, independent sources"?
Frankly, much of this is unsourced. Where are sources to substantiate all of this content?
I'll stipulate to you having addressed the WP:NOTSTATSBOOK issues for the most part, but I still have a slight issue with the length of this article, especially the parts that are unsourced.

Note: I have no doubt that you created and it seems maintained this article in good faith and I apologize if my issue-raising has made it sound otherwise, but I have serious, legitimate concerns to verifiability and relevance. Go Phightins! (talk) 02:30, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WP:AGF no problems. That's the way it's supposed to work.--Paul McDonald (talk) 02:54, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Can anyone identify the sources that establish WP:LISTN, namely that "it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources"? A source that only discusses one coach would not meet this criteria.—Bagumba (talk) 02:40, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Google search on "returning coaches" gives around 14,800 hits. Of course it's not conclusive, but it's a place to start.--Paul McDonald (talk) 02:56, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Except this list is not about generic "returning coaches", it's about ones with non-consecutive tenure. With all due respect to WP:BEFORE, it will be an easier decision to keep if specific sources that establish LISTN are identified.—Bagumba (talk) 03:31, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WOAH... back up.... What could possibly be the differnece between "returning coaches" and "coaches with non-consecutive tenure" ???--Paul McDonald (talk) 02:16, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Returning coaches could mean that they are returning for their xth season (e.g., Brady Hoke returns for his second season at Michigan. Go Phightins! (talk) 02:27, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly. The first hit at [37] is about coaches returning from the previous season at Penn St. The search term is too broad for this list.—Bagumba (talk) 02:41, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Try a less broad one: +"college football coach" +"second tenure" yields around 1,100. Some are Wikipedia pages.--Paul McDonald (talk) 20:39, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I usually limit searches to news hits to ensure they are reliable sources. The hits each appear to talk about an individual coach as opposed to the group as a whole as required by LISTN. Feel free to point out specific quotation that I may have overlooked.—Bagumba (talk) 21:00, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Clearly delimited inclusion parameters, nicely constructed, useful set of in-links. An excellent addition to the encyclopedia. Carrite (talk) 06:20, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:25, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I strongly disagree with the nom and I'm not sure what uniqueness has to do with anything. AutomaticStrikeout 18:56, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to ask you where you think it garners notability? Go Phightins! (talk) 19:08, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it is a fairly uncommon scenario to see a head coach have non-consecutive tenures at one school. This is an informative and helpful list, and I don't see any reason for it to be deleted. AutomaticStrikeout 19:19, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Additionally, most of these are unsourced and don't have Wikipedia articles to cross-reference. Go Phightins! (talk) 19:52, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment So far keeps seem to be ~~WP:ILIKEIT !votes~~, with no evidence to-date that the group, not just the individuals, have been discussed in reliable sources to meet LISTN.—Bagumba (talk) 20:03, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- That was pretty crass and far from the truth. There's a good deal of arguments that support keeping the page other than "I like it".--Paul McDonald (talk) 20:41, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Striking. What I really mean is indication of notability of the group would cinch the decision for me.—Bagumba (talk) 20:53, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Paul (or anyone else), can you please explain how this article meets notability requirements? I just don't see it here. The article is reasonably well maintained, though much of it is poorly sourced, but I just need to see where this article gets its notability. Thanks. Go Phightins! (talk) 23:01, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I don't think the fact that not all entries are sourced matters for the purpose of this discussion. Obviously you can find sources for all of them. I think the key point here is that there are no RSs that talk about the category of coaches with non-consecutive terms. I don't see where it meets notability requirements. – X96lee15 (talk) 15:30, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Try this one USA Today "Hard to Stay Off the Sidelines" includes discussions on Bill Snyder, Chris Ault, Dennis Erickson, John Robinson, Johnny Majors, Gen. Robert Neyland, Eddie Anderson, and Bill Roper.--Paul McDonald (talk) 16:17, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- And here Heisman Pundit "You Can’t Go Home Again" predicts negative results for coaches that return.--Paul McDonald (talk) 01:25, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

All right, well this is a really short "blog-esque" post that lists a few coaches who came back, not really an assertion of notability to me. Go Phightins! (talk) 01:27, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You really think that USA Today = blog-esque ?? The second is a blog yes... by one of the people who vote for the Heisman winner every year. He should be qualified as well.--Paul McDonald (talk) 02:53, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No, let me clarify, I meant the second one was, and I don't really think that that qualifies as much of a source because it comments that x probably won't do well because n, y, and z didn't without actually giving any information on n y or z. Go Phightins! (talk) 03:10, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

- Another Here's an ESPN article that shows examples of selected coaches that returned while discussing Mike Riley's return.--Paul McDonald (talk) 01:36, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Per criterion 1 in WP:GNG, you think that these are more than "trivial mentions". I don't. Go Phightins! (talk) 01:54, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Per criterion 1: "Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material." I would say that the content in the articles are clearly more than trivial, especially the USA Today entry and ESPN articles that have dedicated sections.--Paul McDonald (talk) 04:04, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This espn article is definitely a trivial mention. The article is about one coach returning to a school and just happens to list other coaches that returned to a school. There is no discussion of coaches in general returning to schools and its effects. - 13:58, 1 October 2012 (UTC)X96lee15 (talk) 13:58, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It leads the article with a callout table. The table is highlighted and accented. It takes up significant space in the page. That's not "trivial" at all.--Paul McDonald (talk) 22:06, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

But the table isn't referenced in the article. There are no articles I've seen that discuss the topics of coaches in general returning to their teams after a period of time. − X96lee15 (talk) 13:55, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 05:07, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm still not seeing the multiple non-trivial sources to satisfy WP:LISTN that I would prefer. I don't feel strongly enough about the subject to subjectively keep or delete, so I'm neutral unless something changes.—Bagumba (talk) 17:48, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I do not see evidence that this "has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources" as LISTN requires other than in passing or as a comparison. As a bit of OR, it might be an interesting cut at the coaching data, but OR is not permitted here, of course. And I don't see this as a useful navegational aid. Novaseminary (talk) 03:09, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see how WP:OR applies. From the OR page: The term "original research" (OR) is used on Wikipedia to refer to material—such as facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable, published sources exist. Sources have been provided from USA Today, ESPN, and a prominent member of the sports community has expressed a public opinion on the matter--plus individual third party articles on the coaches have mentioned their inclusion. This isn't conjecture. The article cites reliable, published sources that are directly related to the topic of the article, and directly support the material being presented. The question doesn't seem to be if that was done, the question seems to be if that is enough for Notability.--Paul McDonald (talk) 11:31, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The OR bit was an aside. If it were not OR it is more likely to pass N because it would have received at least some coverage as such. Regardless, it fails LISTN and is not a useful navigational aid. Novaseminary (talk) 04:34, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please explain how it has not "received at least some coverage" in your view.--Paul McDonald (talk) 16:27, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Just because sources have been cobbled together about "Coach X returns," that's not the same as sources about "The phenomenon of coaches returning to previous schools." The latter is what would be needed to justify this article.--GrapedApe (talk) 22:08, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Precisely. Novaseminary (talk) 02:11, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Try again please explain how Hard to Stay Off the Sidelines and You Can’t Go Home Again and Return Engagements does not qualify for "at least some coverage" when each of these articles covers multiple coaches and the effects of what happened on their return.--Paul McDonald (talk) 10:38, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Is this a WP:ICANTHEARYOU situation, because it's crystal clear.--GrapedApe (talk) 12:18, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WP:RTS-"Bill Snyder isn't the first college football coach to step back into the job in which he made, or began making, his reputation. Some others:..." list provided with details. Yes, I'd say it is WP:ICANTHEARYOU but you are the one not listining. This article specifically and directly covers the topic you say is not covered. The article "You Can’t Go Home Again" also specifically and directly covers the topic you say is not covered. The third ESPN article covers the issue not as the main thesis of the article but does provide some details.--Paul McDonald (talk) 13:44, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 09:40, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - As Paul McDonald points out above via links, the list topic has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources as required by Wikipedia:LISTN. Requirements such as "this is a topic that receives widespread independent coverage", "that this is a notable topic via "multiple, independent sources"?", "a really short "blog-esque" post that lists a few coaches who came back", "the multiple non-trivial sources to satisfy WP:LISTN", and ""The phenomenon of coaches returning to previous schools." The latter is what would be needed to justify this article" are not in Wikipedia:LISTN. In addition to meeting LISTN, the list meets WP:LISTPURP: it is a valuable information source and provides navigation and development purposes. References are easy enough to add - I started from the top and quickly sourced the first five entries in the list.[38] Keep. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 11:12, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Paul McDonald and Uzma Gamal: passes WP:LISTN, worthwhile. --Arxiloxos (talk) 21:20, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Does not meet WP:LISTN because there hasn't been significant coverage of these people as a group. There is only one instance I can find where these people are treated as a group, and this is just a sidebar to an article and is not enough on its own to establish significant coverage under WP:LISTN and WP:GNG. Other citations provided are 1) a blog that is not a WP:RS and 2) an article that doesn't treat these people as a class in any depth. What we have here are trivial treatments at best. I could find nothing additional that would support these. Hence delete is the appropriate course. --Batard0 (talk) 07:44, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I agree with the post made by Paul McDonald. I see no problem with this page and the information seems useful and of great value to those who have a specialist interest in this subject. Fireflo (talk) 12:14, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. —Tom Morris (talk) 06:55, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Gurmat Philosophy[edit]

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

Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought as one of the content of What Wikipedia is not. The article looks like an original research or essay. The article is wholly unsourced and some info look like a hoax. Mediran ^{talk|contribs} 09:36, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - unsourced article, apparently a content fork from Gurmat in Sikhism, possibly a variant form of it. It doesn't look like a hoax to me, rather a well-meant attempt to explain and publicise. Obviously Wikipedia is not a suitable place for this activity, specially given that better articles exist already. Chiswick Chap (talk) 12:57, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Please note that the article Gurmat exists. --Anbu121 (talk me) 19:42, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Anbu121 (talk me) 19:52, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. Anbu121 (talk me) 19:52, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sikhism-related deletion discussions. Anbu121 (talk me) 19:52, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The only references are to the author, where information does appear correct it is duplicated on better pages on Wiki - Yorkshiresoul (talk) 14:39, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete due to three reasons: another article already exists, original research and a bit promotional. --Anbu121 (talk me) 07:32, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The Gurmat article is sufficient, this article is not needed. --DThomsen8 (talk) 20:15, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:49, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Below Jupiter[edit]

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

An indie band that does not appear to meet the requirements of notability. The only sources that are available are a couple of reviews in local publications, and a blog. I was unable to find any reliable sources that discussed the band that were not just purely local in nature when I searched for more. The article states that they received some airtime on radio stations, however these were all purely regional broadcasts, and WP:NBAND states that they must receive broadcast rotation on a national level to meet the notability standards. Rorshacma (talk) 23:23, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hue Sat Lum 21:24, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 20:28, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Gongshow ^Talk 06:34, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless someone can find more coverage from national/international media. Cleveland has a fine musical heritage, but being big there does not in itself meet WP:NBAND. --Colapeninsula (talk) 17:42, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:NMUSIC. Looks to be WP:ADVERT. Qworty (talk) 04:13, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 04:03, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ends of Days (Vinnie Paz song)[edit]

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

Does not provide neutral, third-party, reputable evidence of WP:Notability. MatthewVanitas (talk) 21:35, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Gongshow ^Talk 23:58, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as lacking in-depth coverage in multiple independent sources. If in-depth coverage in multiple independent sources is added to the article, feel free to ping my talk page. Stuartyeates (talk) 03:54, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hue Sat Lum 21:23, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Gongshow ^Talk 06:33, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Originator has made no edits since 24 September (Special:Contributions/Jaudi01), and his only edits were to create the page, and to remove the prod tag with no explanation. I know technically potential for someone to put effort into it is not a AFD issue, but the only person apparently interested in this topic appears to be a drive-by editor. MatthewVanitas (talk) 08:39, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Notability requires verifiable evidence in the form of reliable sources that are independent of the subject, and reasonable attempts to find such sources by the participants in this discussion have failed. The "keep" voters haven't produced such sources, and instead seem to be a case of WP:ITSNOTABLE. We may be able to have an article on this in the future if reliable sources become available, but for now deletion looks like the appropriate outcome. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 21:28, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Kinetic Finance Limited Scam[edit]

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

Disputed PROD, fails WP:GNG. I am unable to find in-depth coverage in reliable sources (source cited is more about an individual, and does not support majority of article text). Nounique names 15:47, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Nounique names 15:51, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

QuickComment - The article was created after the article text was clumsily increasing the article topic's entry in the 'Scams in India' article. All the information on this topic was made into a separate article. And secondly, from what I see on the source cited, all the information there is about the article itself. [The scam was executed by the two promoters of the company, whom the source mentions]. IMO, I see no reason for the article to be deleted. TheOriginalSoni (talk) 16:51, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. As stated above, the article is to be bettered, and properly sourced, and not deleted. TheOriginalSoni (talk) 21:29, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep No reason to be deleted, as above. The article needs citations from reliable sources. The article is rewritten after this Afd and sources added.-Rayabhari (talk) 16:38, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The reliale sources are simply not available easily. The claims made in the article about the size of fraud is to be supported by reliable sources. Otherwise, the chairman of the company is founder of Kinetic group of companies in India, and the group as a whole seems OK. -Rayabhari (talk) 17:16, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:41, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:41, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 14:30, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Gongshow ^Talk 06:28, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete financial scams happen all the time. don't see how this meets WP:EVENT. LibStar (talk) 01:43, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Just because financial scams happen all the time does not mean they should go entirely unlisted. By the very same logic, every other stub must be deleted. As mentioned above, this scam is an important part of the [Scams in India] article. TheOriginalSoni (talk) 11:16, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a reason for keeping. as previously stated no way this meets WP:EVENT. LibStar (talk) 01:33, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This is a tough one, but I think it hasn't passed the significant coverage guideline under WP:GNG. I searched around as much as I could and could only find this report from UNI, an Indian news agency. It feels to me like a minor scam that hasn't attracted a ton of coverage. I'd like to see coverage in major Indian newspapers, etc., but I simply can't find it. Is there any evidence that it exists? Until we see some, I think delete is the correct call. The sources cited (and others that I found) are people's blogs and websites, which hardly qualify as WP:RS. Some of the keeps seem to be based upon WP:NOHARM. "No reason to be deleted" is also not a reason for inclusion. --Batard0 (talk) 07:29, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I do think this event is notable and that it passes the criteria for WP:GNG. Only just, but enough for me to want the article to remain Fireflo (talk) 12:19, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Could you cite the multiple reliable sources found that get it past WP:GNG? I will change my vote if I can see a couple of them. Thanks. --Batard0 (talk) 17:23, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Searching Google News and Google News Archives for ("kinetic finance" default) turned up a single hit: this article. Searching for ("kinetic finance" fraud) and ("kinetic finance" scam) yielded ditto. Searching the Times of India website for ("kinetic finance") with date range January 1, 2001--October 20, 2011 produced no hits at all. Searching the website of The Hindu for ("kinetic finance") with date range January 1, 2003--October 20, 2012 also produced no hits at all. There appears to be a fairly clear WP:NRVE failure here.

Note also that the article's description of the events as "fraudulent willful defaults" and "a scam" is unsourced; if the article's kept, these should be deleted as potentially libelous until they can be properly sourced. Ammodramus (talk) 02:44, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - passes WP:GNG. This article needs improvements but not deletion.--BabbaQ (talk) 15:03, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

please provide evidence of sources. LibStar (talk) 15:16, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Mark Arsten (talk) 13:25, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Newark Days[edit]

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

Non-notable regional annual festival. No evidence presented of notability; article reads like advertisement. Andrewlp1991 (talk) 06:27, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but needs to be trimmed to a stub - Considering that the festival symbolises Newark, California's corporation, I believe that may be notable. Additionally, I found one news article to support the establishment. Google News archives provided additional results but several of them appear to be simply event listings or require payment. Several of them are archived from the years past, as far as 1985 from what I see. Google Books provided nothing useful but insufficient available sources is not a reasonable case to delete, what appears to be a notable festival. Hopefully, with time, free sources will become available. I'm willing to trim the article to a stub, SwisterTwister talk 01:38, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Your evidence of notability is a passing mention in the Fremont Patch?? I don't think so. --MelanieN (talk) 19:24, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I never indicated that the patch.com supported the article entirely, I was simply mentioning it. Honestly, I feel the article is significant to the history of Newark but, unfortunately, there are few free sources. However, as you'll see, I added sources to support past themes from the sources I could find. I am open to redirecting the article to Newark,_California#Culture_and_recreation. SwisterTwister talk 01:24, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 18:42, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 18:42, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

~~Weak~~ keep. (I am changing from "weak keep" to "keep" based on the references added to the article by SwisterTwister) At first I was going to suggest a merge/redirect to Newark, California#Culture and recreation, which certainly does need more than the current one-sentence mention. But this is not a trivial festival - its claimed attendance is 100,000 - and it does get some coverage. Aside from the hyperlocal coverage in the Fremont Patch, which I discount, it does seem to get an article every year in the San Jose Mercury News, which is a respected regional paper. That appears to be routine coverage of an annual local event, but still, a full-length article every year in a regional paper probably amounts to significant coverage. Somebody needs to add some of these to the article, which currently has no independent references. --MelanieN (talk) 19:38, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, i was ready to ask for deletion, but i checked on the attendance levels (not in the article yet, unfortunately), and compared it to Solano Avenue Stroll, another local event of similar scope. While the numbers on the Newark event are somewhat smaller, and while its received much less attention than the solano one, i think it should stay, albeit in shortened form to just the basics, perSisterTwister.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 01:14, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I did a minor rewrite, to give the article a proper lead paragraph, and I rewrote a portion of the article that had been cut-and-pasted from the website. --MelanieN (talk) 04:57, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 04:01, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Grey Revell[edit]

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

This subject appears not meet WP:GNG or WP:ANYBIO. The review in non-notable Urban Folk magazine is alone doesn't seem convincing of notability. Media coverage is exceedingly local and lends even less to an encyclopedic biography. The subject also doesn't approach WP:MUSICBIO for much the same reason. Also, his association with more notable ensembles doesn't give way to much coverage of this individual beyond passing mention, credits, and liner notes. Note, this is a somewhat scrubbed version of an autobiography. JFHJr (㊟) 04:38, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

there were some interviews with Jeffrey Lewis that were removed, for no apparent reason they're here: http://www.trakmarx.com/2001_02/lewis.htm and http://mancunianmatters.co.uk/content/21101485-first-lastwith-new-york-anti-folk-star-jeffrey-lewis both of these articles corroborate that Grey is a contemporary of these artists, which is all the article ever said in the first place. also here is a link to the album produced by Grey on Ramseur Records: http://paleface.bandcamp.com/album/the-show-is-on-the-road If the other less notable records should be removed, that is a valid case, but the only problem here seems that there weren't enough citations. Astrocrow (talk) 13:32, 9 October 2012 (UTC) — Astrocrow (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

WP:LOTSOFSOURCES wouldn't do anything to save this article. The mancunianmatters website and Jeffrey Lewis blog are of moderate (but not strong) reliability for BLP content; they has exactly one passing mention of the subject (the articles simply aren't about him) and exactly zero in-depth coverage of the subject in sources that are actually reliable. This subject has been an associate of Paleface, so that's not independent coverage. See WP:42. None of this is negotiable: being a contemporary of other artists is not notable. JFHJr (㊟) 16:01, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Stripped-down version of the fuller autobiography, with little in the way of sources to support notability. The Lewis interviews note Mr. Revell as an admired musician, but these are passing mentions in interviews from sources of uncertain reliability, and Mr. Lewis' claim to notability, as evidenced at his Wiki article, could use further references as well...but that's another story. 76.248.149.47 (talk) 13:56, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, per WP:MUSIC, WP:GNG, WP:BIO, etc. Qworty (talk) 22:15, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 18:33, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

DO NOT DELETE. Mr. Revell has recorded over eight albums, and is a significant contributor to the anti-folk community and genre. Mr. Revell's contributions are significant and notable. Reliable sources can also include the albums he has recorded as original sources. They are available in full version here: http://greyrevell.bandcamp.com/. Though his recorded albums are "self-authored" and are not "Independent of the Subject" these albums, taken along with his recent commercial popularity abroad, his recent attention from media and new fan base, and his significant influence on other anti-folk musicians should be taken as a whole to come to the conclusion that he and his music are notable subjects worthy of a Wikipedia page.

Also, though Mr. Revell has yet to attain widespread attention in the United States, he is not 'likely to remain' in this position, as his popularity is growing exponentially due to the recent attention received via the HP commercial. Mr. Revell is a notable and significant American singer-songwriter and deserves a Wikipedia page.

Grey Revell's contribution to American Songwriting is significant. His recent placement in the HP commercial is a significant achievement, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O91lPSKfgpk&feature=relmfu . He is receiving more downloads now than any other indie musician referenced in his own article. He is touring with the nationally known artist "Paleface" and contributing significantly to his next album. As I am sure you are aware, deleting Mr. Revell's entry from your archives could have serious career consequences for a musician on the brink of widespread commercial success in the U.S. This is an action not to be taken lightly.

It would disserve the Wikipedia community to delete the page of such a significant and notable American singer-songwriter. He is, under the Wikipedia guidelines for notability of music, a "prominent representative of a notable style of music", anti-folk. He has "performed music for a work of media that is notable", the HP commercial. He is a member of a national PRO. He is widely cited by his peers, though all citations are not posted here, and someone seems to be systematically deleting the citations that have been posted recently. There are more sources available. All of these criteria make him eligible for the definition of "notable" under Wikipedia's policy guidelines.— Preceding unsigned comment added by AmandaBCook (talk • contribs) 16:30, 12 October 2012 (UTC) — AmandaBCook (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

None of which are sufficient reasons for keeping the article. As I am sure you are aware, deleting Mr. Revell's entry from your archives could have serious career consequences for a musician on the brink of widespread commercial success in the U.S. This is an action not to be taken lightly is immaterial--Wikipedia is not here to advance a career (Parenthetically, a Wikipedia biography generally has very little impact on career trajectory, and attempts to 'guilt' editors into keeping an article have even less impact on the Wikipedia community). None of the removed citations came from reliable sources, per WP:RELIABLE. Also please read WP:CRYSTAL; Wikipedia does not include articles based on the possibility or even likelihood that someone may become notable. As yet there is no evidence that "he is widely cited by his peers." If there are any credible sources, I'd suggest you add them, rather than making claims that no editors have yet been able to substantiate. If and when such sources become available, a deleted article may be resubmitted. Thanks, 76.248.149.47 (talk) 20:18, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You did not address his thus far commercial success, which DOES fit under the Wikipedia definition of notable. The reasons stated in my last paragraph of my first comment are all, independently, reasons given in WP:MUSIC for allowing a notable music bio. This reasoning cannot just be ignored by stating "none of which are sufficient," that is just flatly untrue. How can the very commercial that used his song, itself, be unreliable, especially in combination with his discography on Bandcamp, where the song is available in its entirety? Did you fail to follow the link to the commercial that I provided? Are you not aware that under the DMCA the recording artist who created "Gone Gone" would have these sources removed almost instantly if they were not reliable sources, if the music had somehow, no matter how unlikely, been recorded by another artist? In the case of this song, all THREE factors of reliability, the source itself, the publisher of the source, and the publisher of the source are COMPLETELY reliable. Mr. Revell IS notable, and he has every indication of remaining notable as an American singer-songwriter in the future. I am not an editor of this article. I have added links and they have been removed within minutes of my adding them, by whom I do not know. Perhaps John from Chapel Hill can answer that question. He seems to have some sort of personal connection to and/or vendetta against Mr. Revell. I don't have time to keep adding reliable sources just to have them taken down by the likes of you. My law practice keeps me too busy to fool around much on Wikipedia. But I do know that calling an artist whose career depends on notoriety "un-notable" might be considered by a court as libel, Mr. 76.248.149.47. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AmandaBCook (talk • contribs) 00:56, 13 October 2012 (UTC) — AmandaBCook (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Given the last comment, this is now off to the incidents noticeboard. 76.248.149.47 (talk) 02:00, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Editor is now indef'd until or if they rescind and disavow the legal threat. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:23, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

AmandaBCook, you gotta read WP:LEGAL. Your law practice is no use here on Wikipedia. Zappa O Mati 02:21, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No evidence of notability has been provided. No workups on himself or his work have been shown to exist in reliable sources, and his indie status makes these unlikely to exist. Really, anyone who is described by his own people as being "on the brink of success" is almost certainly non-notable. Someguy1221 (talk) 02:13, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Notability has not been asserted, with little (if I can find any) WP:RS. Zappa O Mati 02:21, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Amanda doesn't understand how reliable sourcing works. Please read WP:RS thoroughly, Amanda. Okay, so this guy has a song in part of a Hewlett-Packard commercial for an ink-jet printer? That's your argument for musical notability??? LOL. It's a mighty small argument, but okay, I'll engage you in it. Give us the sources--where are the ARTICLES about that song being partially in the commercial? Where are the ARTICLES that tell us how important, significant and influential it is? Oh--there aren't any?? Well guess what, Amanda, that means that, according to official Wikipedia policies, this Revell guy is just not notable. You see, Wikipedia verifiability is all about secondary sourcing, not primary sourcing. I hope you're beginning to understand, although I fear it may be too late, since you're on the verge of getting yourself permanently banned from Wikipedia for making legal threats. You see, that also goes against our policies. You claim to be a law-school graduate and an attorney, so you should know by now how to read and interpret policy. Thank you for your time. Qworty (talk) 02:51, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No assertion of notability (just "he moved here and did that") + No secondary sources = Soon, no article. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:17, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. AmandaBCook actually does herself a disservice. Whether intentionally or not, in her 'DO NOT DELETE' post she has in fact spelled out all the reasons why this article lacks notability. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:23, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
One of the spambots stripped out the YouTube link, per [39]. YouTube is never a reliable source. In any case, the video Amanda offered is not about Revell. Thus, it cannot be used to argue that he is notable. What is it about? A Hewlett-Packard inkjet printer! Thus, even if the video were permitted here, it could be used only to argue that inkjet printing is notable. Which, in fact, it is, as seen from the existence of the following article: Inkjet printing. Are you beginning to understand now, Amanda? Are you still going to sue us when you're the one who confused this guy with a printer? Qworty (talk) 03:27, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I wouldn't say "never", but it would be a pretty short list. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:25, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"though Mr. Revell has yet to attain widespread attention . . ." Amanda, please read WP:CRYSTAL. I know that all of the policies being thrown at you here in the AfD and on your talk page will make from some extensive, heavy, and dry reading, but you claim to be legally trained, so it should be a cinch for you. Qworty (talk) 03:38, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: User:AmandaBCook is indefinately blockedfor making legal threats. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:05, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete He's got a track on a Rough Trade compilation and on an ad - that's good but not enough. Otherwise, having your catalogue at Bandcamp means nothing more than having your book at Amazon. It means 'this exists'. Otherwise, Ms Cook has (unfortunately) said it all. Except for referring to 'notoriety' when I would have expected 'fame' or 'notability'. Notoriety is Al Capone, or alleged by hiphoppers and rappers (often trying to live down middle class upbringings). I would also point out that this is a bit of a Catch 22 - if one's career depends on having a Wikpedia article, then one is certainly not in the position (yet) of qualifying for one. If one's career is such that one is too busy to be worried about it, one probably qualifies. I wish him luck - music is a hard business. And hope to see him back some day with a regular label or at least plenty of reliable independent sources WP:RS. Peridon (talk) 20:54, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 03:58, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Jonathan Shipley (writer)[edit]

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

added 07:10, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

I may not be doing the right searches, but I can find no evidence of notability for Jonathan Shipley (writer) or his work. The biographical article is referenced to a variety of sources which are either unreliable or lack independence, and the other two articles are referenced solely to Shipley's own works.

These articles were all created by one single-purpose account, whose only page creations are of these articles and a related template. This may be a promotional exercise. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 04:24, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 04:43, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 04:45, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete — I'm also coming up rather empty on reliable sources after going through WP:BEFORE. Nothing I found even came close to WP:GNG or WP:NBOOK. The sources provided are crap and some (if not most) do not support the claims made. The WP:LOTSOFSOURCES are misleading. This is just a farm of external links on non-notable writing and it should go. JFHJr (㊟) 06:20, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I missed one more page in this set: the unreferenced Sharlverse list. Have just added it to the nomination. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 07:10, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - found some other Shipleys, but hardly anything usable on this one. It certainly looks like publicity, whoever wrote it. WP:GNG is nowhere in sight. Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:05, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. None of the sources on the articles assert enough notability to warrant these remaining on Wikipedia and I found nothing via a search that would change that.Tokyogirl79 (talk)
Delete All for failing WP:AUTHOR and WP:BK. Qworty (talk) 22:18, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Snow Keep. (non-admin closure) — ΛΧΣ21™ 00:46, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fairview, Harford County, Maryland[edit]

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

I believe this is a non-notable community, as I live near it and it is basically just a single intersection with a few houses. Just simply being considered a "populated place" by the U.S. Census Bureau does not necessarily make it notable. epzik8 11:09, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

weak keep - on the contrary, almost all populated places are considered to be notable enough for an article, though I realise the WP:NGEOG is a proposed guideline only. Looking at an aerial map, it seems to have a cemetery too, so likely to have some noteworthy history. All that being said, a one line stub is hardly a hill of beans! Sionk (talk) 21:38, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:NPLACE. Seeing as it is marked on Google Maps, I'd say it exists, so keep. Also keep in mind that the extreme majority of unincorporated places such as Fairview have articles. "Pepper" @ 00:31, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, it is a village with its history, people. Faisal 1918 (talk) 03:44, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Maryland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:39, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I see where everyone is coming from with the reasons that the community should be considered to be notable, but I don't think just being marked on Google Maps and being home to an historic cemetery qualifies it to have its own article on Wikipedia. I know it exists, because I drive through it a lot, but nobody I know ever refers to the community's landmarks as being in Fairview. It's in the zip code area of a town called Forest Hill, which is the closest "real" town, so everyone considers it as being part of Forest Hill. (epzik8) 19:27, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Technically, Forest Hill isn't a town, it's an unincorporated community just like Fairview. I've already made my point above about Wikipedia functioning as a gazetteer, and most people are in agreement with that. Of course you're entitled to your opinion, but with past experience, I've found that most people would disagree with that. "Pepper" @ 20:31, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It's a verified populated place, and by long-standing precedent it's therefore notable, both because Wikipedia functions as a gazetteer and almost all of these places end up having plenty of coverage. TheCatalyst31 ^{Reaction•Creation} 10:00, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep verified places like towns, villages, unincorporated communities are inherently notable; deletion nominations are needlessly disruptive and time sinks. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 00:32, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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