< 21 January	23 January >

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) 21:42, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ezechiel Palmieri[edit]

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

Does not appear to meet the criteria for WP:MUSICBIO or WP:COMPOSER. Evidently he recently was in a competition but no indication that he won or placed in the competition. The piece concerning the competition is the only significant coverage I was able to find. J04n(talk page) 23:59, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:BASIC Alfy32 (talk) 01:54, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 03:35, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 03:35, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Argentina-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 03:35, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unsourced BLP. -- Patchy1 10:42, 24 January 2013 (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 as a clear attempt at an end-run around an active Arbitration enforcement measure. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:16, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Puppet State of Serbia[edit]

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

This article is a content fork of Talk:Territory of the Military Commander in Serbia and Government of National Salvation Peacemaker67 (send... over) 23:34, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. per nomination. There was an ongoing and quite vigorous discussion at Territory of the Military Commander in Serbia (which was move blocked for a year in November 2012 after several unsuccessful WP:RMs) where some editors quite strongly advocated a move to a title that indicated that this territory was a puppet state). On 22 January 2013, a new account User:RogueSchoolar is created and its first edit is to create this article and then redirect all existing redirects to Territory of the Military Commander in Serbia to point to this article, including editing complex templates like Template:Yugoslavia timeline. A look at the 35 edits [1] made immediately after account creation indicates that article creator is an obvious WP:SPA, and probably a sock. That aside, the article is an obvious WP:POVFORK. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 00:46, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Srnec (talk) 03:48, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

AFAICT, this is basically a violation of the WP:ARBMAC temporary injunction on moving the Territory... article. Speedy delete and block the bad-faith single-purpose account? --Joy [shallot] (talk) 08:19, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Good point Joy, I've reported at ANI and asked EdJohnston to take a look. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 23:59, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. Quite obvious POV-fork. And a reminder for everyone: we also need to deal with Axis occupation of Serbia. No such user (talk) 08:38, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Territory of... and the Axis occupation of ... articles can technically coexist, if one of them describes an administrative unit and the other describes history. However, descriptions of former administrative units are history in and of itself, so the merge potential is glaring. There's an apparently vocal group of editors who fancy former country articles, which in turn duplicate or make a mess of regular history articles. It's impossible to make a clean cut there without a more general decision by the community. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 11:01, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Technically yes, because the Territory was German-administered (with Bulgarian help) but the Axis (ie Germans, Hungarians, Bulgarians, Italian-puppet Albania and the NDH) all occupied parts of what is now Serbia. What rankles me is the insistence on the ahistorical and revisionist philosophy that underpins Axis occupation of Serbia. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 11:43, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Didn't you say that you'd AfD that too if its scope wasn't clarified?--— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 18:32, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – I do not agree that my new article is POVFORK of article Territory of the Military Commander in Serbia. My article is much better sourced and most sources which speak about that time are speak about puppet state of Serbia rather than about territory of military commander. Article Territory of the Military Commander in Serbia fail to provide definition what that territory really was and what was relation between that territory and puppet state of Serbia which was described by most sources. Here is example of Kosovo case (there are 3 different articles about it):

Kosovo

Republic of Kosovo

Autonomous Province of Kosovo and Metohija

All 3 articles are about 3 different entities that coexist in same territory. If such 3 articles are not POV fork why article about puppet state of Serbia is POV fork? Most sources say that there was puppet state of Serbia and minority of sources say that there was territory of military commander. My new article can even solve dispute about name for article Territory of the Military Commander in Serbia. If there are two articles about both things described in sources then there will be no dispute about name of one article. Article Territory of the Military Commander in Serbia have support only from minority of sources and oppose majority of sources. If there are two entities that coexisted in same territory in that time Wikipedia should have articles about both. Article Territory of the Military Commander in Serbia primarily speak about German occupation and there should be article that speak about Serbian collaboration. Current article Government of National Salvation cover only part of that collaboration because that government had state to govern. RogueSchoolar (talk) 19:10, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

delete, clearly a POV fork. Frietjes (talk) 19:35, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, leaning to Delete. WP's whole coverage of what is commonly known as German-occupied Serbia (or something like that) is a mess, with multiple competing articles under multiple different names seemingly covering the same ground and duplicating material; or pretty much the same ground but with a twist so that people can claim they are actually about different things. Most of of them – including the main "Territory .." article – exist under made-up or little known names. We need one main article about the German occupation during WW2 of the area that comprises most of Serbia as commonly understood geographically, then and now, with spin-off articles about clearly defined and commonly understood aspects of that as necessary (eg the administrative structure/government etc). N-HH talk/edits 20:57, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Agree that it needs to be resolved, however, this is not the article to do it with. It is clearly a work-around. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 21:00, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP Article is well sourced unlike territory of the commandeer, which have support from only one or two sources. AŽDAHABEZDAHA (talk) 21:28, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Blatant WP:SOCK or WP:MEAT. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 21:32, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

LOL - I agree - odd people don't realizes we will notice ...PS delete as per non.Moxy (talk) 22:39, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Serbia-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 03:40, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 03:40, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 03:40, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 03:46, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. POVFORK created as blatant gaming the system to avoid the injunction on moving the article it's forked from. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:37, 24 January 2013 (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. WP:CSD#A9 JohnCD (talk) 23:06, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

On the Rebound (album)[edit]

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

Demo that does not appear to meet notability criteria Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:28, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 04:17, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 04:17, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete (CSD#A9). The band's article has been deleted and there's no indication of this album's importance. Gong show 23:02, 28 January 2013 (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 per WP:G3 by RHaworth. (non-admin closure) ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 16:49, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Electro Air Hockey[edit]

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

Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, and I wasn't able to find sources to flesh this out. Prod removed. FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 22:26, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 04:12, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 04:12, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 04:12, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Bensci54 (talk) 04:57, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. All highly dubious - possibly a hoax. Without a single source to confirm that this series even exists, this article does not belong on Wikipedia. --DAJF (talk) 05:59, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I too failed to find a single source about this, even an unreliable one. I echo DAJF's concerns about this being a possible hoax. Even if this is real, it fails WP:GNG. (Note - this is Mr. Stradivarius and I'm using my alternative account.) — Mr. Stradivarius on tour ^{♪ talk ♪} 06:12, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
~~Speedy Delete~~ You Lose. Game Over. Two things: 1. 4Kids entered bankruptcy, and while it's since gone out of it (and renamed itself 4Licensing), I don't think they would want to do a high-profile work anytime soon, and 2. Not a single result for an anime anywhere. Seriously, a show based on a flash game on Miniclip is just too good (or bad) to be true. Even the game it's based on has not received reliable coverage. Tagged as G3. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 10:50, 24 January 2013 (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) 21:44, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Cyber jazz[edit]

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

The article consists mostly of original research. This doesn't seem to be a recognized style of music, much less the artistic movement that (I think) this article implies. The cited sources don't really corroborate what the article says: A band called Gemini Soul describes their own music as "cyber jazz" ("jazz funk-fusion with an electronic element"),[2] but it doesn't seem it's anything like what this article is trying to describe (influences such as Blade Runner and "values like nihilism" [sic]). [3] mentions neither "cyber" nor "jazz" (although as the source is non-English I'm not certain if or how it relates to cyber jazz at all). The (dead) link about Eternal Network ([4]) mentions neither "cyber" nor "jazz" nor, for that matter, anything about the point being made in the article. [5] is only about "cyber jazz" in the context of listening to jazz via the internet (streaming audio etc.). [6] doesn't mention mention "cyber jazz". Delete. Gyrofrog (talk) 22:05, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Gyrofrog (talk) 22:09, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Notified WP:JAZZ and WP:GENRE. -- Gyrofrog (talk) 22:13, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Seems to be a non-notable neologism and not an actual genre of music. No information on it's history development, or what differentiates it from other more established genres of music. All the artists mentioned actually belong to larger more prominent genres like avant garde or the various noise genres. Ridernyc (talk) 22:24, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

in addition taking a closer look at the article it reads like rambling made up OR non-sense. The last section in particular is just rambling pseudo intellectualism. Looks like someone made an article for some fringe musical theories. Ridernyc (talk) 22:53, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete none of the sources support the idea that this is a genre. Fails WP:NOTE.--SabreBD (talk) 23:13, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete based on past outcomes. We have almost always deleted new genres of music; alternative metal notwithstanding. Bearian (talk) 21:06, 29 January 2013 (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. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 02:39, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Helen Price[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG non notable 17 year old blogger, can find no reliable third party references. Theroadislong (talk) 21:27, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Indeed, obviously fails notability. Alfy32 (talk) 22:57, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - insufficient coverage in reliable sources to satisfy WP:BIO. ukexpat (talk) 01:20, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:ANYBIO, WP:BIO1E. In an attempt to not bite the newcomers, I'd hoped this might be a merge candidate to World Schools Debating Championships but unfortunately that doesn't appear to be the case. While there are a few more references,[7][8][9] there's nothing substantial enough and I agree that the subject is not notable (or it's way TOOSOON). -- Trevj (talk) 14:01, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 03:55, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 03:55, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wales-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 03:55, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Promising newcomer to the world stage but not quite ready for a standalone article that meets WP:BLP. Mkdw ^talk 09:55, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, fails notability currently.--Staberinde (talk) 15:36, 27 January 2013 (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 per WP:G10, closing discussion that was mistakenly left open.(non-admin closure) The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 14:35, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

2012 Christmas message of Italian Catholic Priest Piero Corsi[edit]

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

Minor reporting of a minor event - reporting not continued over any period of time worthy of WP:Notability - delete per Wikipedia:NOTNEWSPAPER#NEWSPAPER - Youreallycan 21:08, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete As an attack page. Was originally a BLP and only serves to disparage a living person.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 22:06, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. An non-notable person says something controversial, and there is a short-lived fuss about it. Yawn. See WP:NOT#NEWS #2 on "enduring notability". JohnCD (talk) 22:45, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per JohnCD. This hasn't garnered the sort of widespread, lasting coverage that would merit encyclopedic treatment. --BDD (talk) 23:38, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I can see what the author was trying to do but even doing so successfully would likely have failed WP:NOTNEWS. Stalwart111 23:48, 22 January 2013 (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 00:06, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Paget, Ontario[edit]

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

too short, and, Rail siding????! AddisWang (talk) 19:49, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It doesn't even appear to be real. Alfy32 (talk) 20:44, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Google Maps shows "Paget", near the coordinates given at the top of the article. Whether there's a community or anything else there that qualifies for an article is another question. --Arxiloxos (talk) 21:27, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ Comment: Well, it's real, but that's about all that can be said about it. When railway tracks were first laid throughout Canada in the late 19th and early 20th centuries, literally thousands upon thousands of railway sidings were established. Some became the nuclei of thriving communities...and others were destined for obscurity, nothing more than names which show up on some maps. I have not found evidence that the criteria of WP:Notability (geographic features) for Geographic regions, areas and places are met:

The article gives no indication that the place is populated and I could not locate any Canadian census records specific to Paget.
I did not locate other indication of notability, past or present.

(Disclaimer: I only spent a few minutes searching with Google and have no prior familiarity with the location, so it's possible I missed something. EDIT: Looks like I voted too soon, but I'm not sure at the moment whether to vote merge/redirect or keep.) --Mike Agricola (talk) 21:41, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral ~~Delete~~ - per Mike Agricola's quite excellent analysis. Stalwart111 23:58, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm probably still inclined to see this merged somewhere if there's nothing to verify that the location is populated/notable but I understand there's a precedent for geographic locations and there seems to be some grey area around this one. Must say, I'm impressed by the very civilised discourse at this AFD. Good work folks! Stalwart111 01:41, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Natural Resources Canada says Paget is a "dispersed rural community", which implies it is (or at least was) a populated place. As Wikipedia is a gazetteer, this makes it notable. TheCatalyst31 ^{Reaction•Creation} 00:47, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The NRCAN website also states that it's an "unincorporated area." In light of WP:Notability (geographic features), does its lack of incorporation categorize it as a "Populated place without legal recognition"? Or does the mere fact of its listing on a government website as a "dispersed rural community" constitute "legal recognition"? The matter of legal recognition is important because the burden of demonstrating notability is higher in its absence: "Populated places without legal recognition are considered on a case-by-case basis....given non-trivial coverage in multiple, independent reliable sources." --Mike Agricola (talk) 01:09, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In the US at least, unincorporated communities listed in the Geographic Names Information System (the US counterpart to the Geographic Names Board of Canada) have generally been considered notable in the past. Canada's classification system is a bit different, though, as it appears to classify both populated places and non-populated localities as "unincorporated areas", and the latter historically haven't been notable unless they pass the GNG. That's why the "dispersed rural community" classification seems important here, since that suggests it's populated. TheCatalyst31 ^{Reaction•Creation} 01:31, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In all fairness Mike Agricola (talk · contribs), there are a number of unincorporated communities that have articles at the English Wikipedia, including Okanagan Falls, because they are usually quite notable enough, although this does seems to be a special case. Regardless, I would myself still argue to keep the article per my reasoning below, but I am not sure about TheCatalyst31 (talk · contribs). TBr and ley ^{(what's up)} 01:55, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the replies, TheCatalyst31 and TBrandley. I would have already voted keep if even one of three conditions was met: (a) reliable sources describing the community's history, landmarks, etc. could be located, (b) it were incorporated (and thus clearly legally recognized), or (c) it had its own census category: a search for Paget directs to "Sudbury, Unorganized, North Part". By comparison, the census has specific categories for even small villages such as Consul, Saskatchewan, with a 2011 population of 84 persons, so the lack of a census category for Paget strikes me as indicative of its lack of notability. Under these circumstances, I tend to agree with Clarityfiend that something more than mere existence is needed to warrant a separate article. That's the case with the previously mentioned example of Okanagan Falls, which is definitely notable on account of its association with the Dominion Radio Astrophysical Observatory. However, it's definitely possible that someone familiar with the local history of the area can supply some additional sources so I may yet vote "keep". --Mike Agricola (talk) 17:41, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:NGEO. It has been proven as a populated place at one point, and therefore should probably have an article at the English Wikipedia. TBr and ley ^{(what's up)} 01:55, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 01:56, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to ~~Sudbury District#Subdivisions, to a new subsection called "Unincorporated areas"~~ Unorganized North Sudbury District. The place has official status according to the government reference, but there's not much to say about the place, certainly not enough for a standalone article. Clarityfiend (talk) 09:52, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I should note that Unorganized North Sudbury District already mentions Paget. That would be a reasonable merge/redirect destination. However, it is possible that additional reliable sources about Paget may yet come to light later in this discussion, so I'm waiting for a bit to determine what to change my vote to. --Mike Agricola (talk) 17:15, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Unorganized North Sudbury District. It is common practice for small Ontario communities without a viable article to redirect to the parent jurisdiction, see for example Category:Communities in Renfrew County which is full of redirects. -- P 1 9 9 ✉ 20:43, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Unorganized North Sudbury District. For three reasons: (a) it has been a couple days since this AfD began and no evidence for the community's notability beyond mere existence has been presented, (b) this sort of redirect for small Ontario communities already has an established Wikipedia precedent, and (c) the Canadian census itself redirects a query for Paget to "Sudbury, Unorganized, North Part". --Mike Agricola (talk) 00:05, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, not redirect I don't think that anything at Unorganized North Sudbury District would (or even should, perhaps), discuss this particular place - will its map and coordinates be shown (e.g.?). Many places are not separated by census bureaux but that does not detemine their notability. Most unincorporated US places are not separately enumerated by the census bureau but keeping them has been the norm for years, due in part to their inherent notability (see WP:OUTCOMES, WP:NGEO) and WP's gazetteer purpose (see WP:FIVEPILLARS). Why practice in Canada should differ from that applied elsewhere in the world hasn't been satisfactorily articulated; and I submit that the burden is on the nominator and those advocating an exception to demonstrate the value of that. In the several days this AFD has been pending, the burden has failed to be met. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 18:29, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a distinct, populated location. This is a case where verified existiance is notability per Wikipedia's remit as a gazzeeteer and per WP:OUTCOMES. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:33, 29 January 2013 (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. Mark Arsten (talk) 15:33, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

List of black fashion models[edit]

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

Arbitrary list based on subjective racial designation. No comparable wikipedia list exists (e.g. no List of white fashion models). There are instead various ethnicity based lists like List of Pakistani models and List of South Korean models. The related Category:List of Black Fashion Models was also recently deleted for similar reasons (c.f. [10]). In keeping with Wikipedia:EGRS#Ethnicity_and_race, which indicates that "ethnic groups are commonly used when categorizing people; however, race is not", MOS:IDENTITY instructs to "use specific terminology[...] For example, often it is more appropriate for people from Ethiopia (a country in Africa) to be described as Ethiopian, not carelessly (with the risk of stereotyping) as African." Similarly, WP:ETHNICGROUP, which contains conventions on how to name Wikipedia articles about peoples, ethnicities and tribes, states that: "How the group self-identifies should be considered[...] If their autonym is commonly used in English, it would be the best article title[...] Any terms regarded as derogatory by members of the ethnic group in question should be avoided." Given the foregoing, recommend deleting the list and moving its entries to new individual autonym/ethnicity based lists, such as List of African American fashion models, List of Nigerian fashion models, etc.. Middayexpress (talk) 18:55, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete If only for the reason that the word "black" when applied to people is defined differently in different cultures. African Americans and people of various African nations can have their own lists. Not sure what to do with Euro-African people (who would be called "black" in the USA but not in many other countries.) There could be an article on Race in modeling which could mention models who have been pioneers or otherwise noted for their race. BigJim707 (talk) 19:51, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete we have never accepted to treat all people of African descent as one ethnic group in a trans-national sense. Afro-Brazilians and African-Americans are two distinct ethnic groups, and Kenyans are a third. We categorize by ethnicity not race. Thus List of African-American models, List of Afro-Brazilian models and List of Kenyan models would all work, but I do not think a trans-national list works.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:03, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As stated by the nom and by the other commenters, we categorize based on ethnicity not on race. Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 21:19, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 22:05, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 22:05, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The nomination's claim about existing practise is false — see List of black Britons or List of black NHL players, for example. The topic has great notability as there are several books about it and so WP:LISTN is satisfied. For example, see

Furthermore, for a model, the appearance of the skin is of much greater importance than other attributes such as language and so the adjective black is quite appropriate here. Per WP:EUPHEMISM and WP:CENSOR, we should follow the sources in this matter rather than seeking to suppress the topic.

Finally, note that the nominator suggests using material from this article to create new lists. Deletion would be improper as we require the edit history for attribution per the licensing policy.

Warden (talk) 23:48, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There are many Google hits to "white fashion models" as well [11], but that doesn't change Wikipedia policy on this issue. The assertion in the nomination about existing practice also refers to the lack of counterpart racial pages (viz. List of white fashion models). Instead, only ethnicity based pages such as List of Pakistani models exist. This is consistent with MOS:IDENTITY. On the other hand, the euphemism policy has no bearing here and says nothing about the treatment of identity. The censorship policy is likewise subordinate to and does not negate other policies ("content that[...] violates other Wikipedia policies (especially neutral point of view) or the laws of the U.S. state of Florida where Wikipedia's main servers are hosted, will also be removed"). Middayexpress (talk) 16:06, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete / replace - while Warden's analysis is compelling, I somewhat disagree with the use of List of black Britons and List of black NHL players as examples. My concern is that both trans-national race and the occupation in question are somewhat subjective. I'm not suggesting they can't be adequately defined for our purposes here, I'm just not excited about the idea of doing so. In the case of the examples above, there's very little subjectivity in either "Briton" or "NHL player", even if there is conjecture about whether someone identifies as "black". I suppose the same could be said for "fashion model" if we adequately define the professional parameters being used. Anyway, I suppose I'd much rather see a well-written article about Black Fashion Models, citing the sources given above, properly analysing the "cultural impact" assertions and listing some of the more notable black fashion models. Much like Black players in American professional football (to use another sports-based analogy) or even Black science fiction. Stalwart111 00:18, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Make a category: Seems to be something that should be made a category. p b p 01:38, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Such a category previously existed but was deleted, only a few weeks ago. That was my first thought too. Stalwart111 01:44, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep That category deletion was an error, and should be revisited, not copied. This is an example of where surface appearance of individuals is relevant to the professional role. DGG ( talk ) 02:59, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, it was deleted because of Wikipedia:EGRS#Ethnicity_and_race ("ethnic groups are commonly used when categorizing people; however, race is not"). Middayexpress (talk) 16:06, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep They get coverage for being black. I restored some entries that were removed by the nominator, for no valid reason at all, which include Yasmin Warsame who has been featured in the 2008 "Vogue Italia" All Black Issue. A notable magazines has an All Black Issue. Other magazines that cater to a black audience only have black models on their covers. Dream Focus 10:25, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia best practices are not determined by the whims of fashion magazine editors. They are governed by wiki's own internal set of policies and guidelines. The latter expressly discourage subjective, race based categorization; they recommend instead factual, ethnicity based categorization. Middayexpress (talk) 16:06, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOTABILITY Dream Focus 16:16, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The general notability policy doesn't say anything specific about identity. However, it does indicate that its stipulations must be consistent with other wiki policies/guidelines. That said, MOS:IDENTITY instructs to "use specific terminology[...] For example, often it is more appropriate for people from Ethiopia (a country in Africa) to be described as Ethiopian, not carelessly (with the risk of stereotyping) as African." This, in turn, implies that moving the individual entries to new ethnicity based list pages such as List of African American models, List of Nigerian models, etc., in the model of List of South Korean models, would be more appropriate than any race based list page. Middayexpress (talk) 16:51, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:NOTLAW, "Written rules do not themselves set accepted practice." The MOS is in the hands of cranks who bicker endlessly about the difference between hyphens, n-dashes and other minutiae and so drive off sensible editors. There are plenty of cranks who bicker about nationality too and so reorganising the topic along those lines would be a can-of-worms. Yasmin Warsame, for example, was born in Somalia and now works in various countries including Canada, France, Italy and the USA. WP:LISTN and WP:SAL indicate that we should base our lists upon reliable sources. Sources which correspond to the current structure have been produced in evidence above. We have no corresponding evidence for other types of structure. Warden (talk) 17:28, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Notlaw applies to all policies/guidelines equally, including those just linked to. Per WP:PG, "Wikipedia policies and guidelines are developed by the community to describe best practice, clarify principles, resolve conflicts, and otherwise further our goal of creating a free, reliable encyclopedia." Besides MOS:IDENTITY, that would include WP:ETHNICGROUP, which contains conventions on how to name Wikipedia articles about peoples, ethnicities and tribes: "How the group self-identifies should be considered[...] If their autonym is commonly used in English, it would be the best article title[...] Any terms regarded as derogatory by members of the ethnic group in question should be avoided." Autonym based ethnicity list titles, such as List of African American models, List of Nigerian models, etc., are thus more appropriate. Middayexpress (talk) 18:27, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

But, in this specific case, it's not the ethnic group that's relevant but the skin colour. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:37, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The list is on individuals, and WP:ETHNICGROUP applies to all "peoples, ethnicities and tribes". Middayexpress (talk) 20:01, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As I said, this article is not about models from a "people, ethnicity and tribe" but about models with a particular skin colour. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:14, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That doesn't appear to be the situation. The skin tones of the women vary greatly; some aren't particularly dark. But let's say for the sake of argument that that's correct and the list is about models with a particular skin colour. Where would that leave other dusky females in the profession, like the Indian model Lakshmi Menon? It's uncertain because the "black" skin tone in the title is undefined and ultimately subjective. Imagine a list where Japanese and European models are listed together solely based on their light skin tone. The effect would be the same and equally confusing and unencyclopedic. Middayexpress (talk) 15:05, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Reliable sources cover the "black" race, and black models, just like they do black actors, and black musicians. There are notable award shows dedicated to people of just one ethnic group. We use the word "black" in other articles already. Historically black colleges and universities, List of Black Canadians, Black Canadians, Black sitcom, even an article for Black people. We also have articles with the word Latino or Hispanic in them, such as List of Latino Republicans. Dream Focus 17:40, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Black" is not an ethnic group. It's a grouping of peoples based on perceived ancestry, whether real or not. Latino is not equivalent to black here because there is no color component involved in that term. There are many Google hits to "white fashion models" as well [12], yet no List of white fashion models wikipedia page exists. And indeed there shouldn't be because WP:ETHNICGROUP, which contains conventions on peoples in general, instructs that: "How the group self-identifies should be considered[...] If their autonym is commonly used in English, it would be the best article title[...] Any terms regarded as derogatory by members of the ethnic group in question should be avoided." The autonym/endonym of several of the models in the list is not "black". It's instead their own actual ethnicity. This is why autonym/ethnicity based list titles, such as List of African American models, List of Nigerian models, etc., remain the most appropriate naming convention here. Middayexpress (talk) 19:33, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

With any form of categorisation there will be some difficult borderline cases. That doesn't detract from the fact that in the particular case of models it makes much more sense to categorise on the basis of reliably sourced external appearance rather than cultural or genetic heritage. Phil Bridger (talk) 17:54, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The particular, dark skin color alluded to is not actually the skin tone of several of the models in the list. It is also found in many different populations around the world. The latter especially isn't a borderline situation. Middayexpress (talk) 19:33, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If that's the case then the solution is to remove those entries, not to delete the whole list. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:53, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's the point at where I start having concerns. Do we include only those models who have self-identified as black (in a manner that can be WP:V with WP:RS)? Do we arbitrarily include any model with African-American heritage? I can see the value in acknowledging the broad (and well-sourced) contribution of black men and women to the fashion modelling industry, but are we really going to just pick-and-chose who we consider to be black and list them? I see a few problems with that. Stalwart111 23:33, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You use editorial judgment on things like this. You use common sense. You can obviously tell the difference between someone who is Indian, such as the before mentioned Lakshmi Menon [13], and someone who is black. Dream Focus 00:23, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's a link to the actress Lakshmi Menon, not the older model of the same name. The latter looks like certain women from the Horn of Africa specifically (e.g. [14]). So it does in many instances come down to subjectivity. Middayexpress (talk) 15:09, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

All classifications are subjective because they are man-made and so determined by particular people. For this reason, we base all our work upon reliable sources, rather than deciding for ourselves. As there are plenty of reliable sources which document this topic, we have no special difficulty in this case. The talk page for the article does not indicate that there has been any major disputes — nothing like the fighting over the spelling of Yoghourt, for example. Warden (talk) 15:48, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There are also plenty of Google links to "white fashion models" [15], yet no List of white fashion models page exists. This brings us back to square one and WP:ETHNICGROUP: "How the group self-identifies should be considered[...] If their autonym is commonly used in English, it would be the best article title[...] Any terms regarded as derogatory by members of the ethnic group in question should be avoided." The autonym/endonym of several of the models in the list is not "black"; it's instead their own actual ethnicity. "Black" is an exonym. This is why autonym/ethnicity based list titles, such as List of African American models, List of Nigerian models, etc., remain the most appropriate naming convention here. Middayexpress (talk) 16:10, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Another article not existing is not a reason to delete this one. You repeating yourself constantly doesn't prove your case. Dream Focus 16:21, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If my replies are repetitive, that may be because what I'm responding to is repetitive and consistently ignores policy governing the issue. It obviously also does matter if this is literally the only wikipedia page on models classified according to a color based scheme. All of the other similar standalone lists, such as List of Pakistani models and List of South Korean models, are sorted according to autonym/ethnicity, as per WP:ETHNICGROUP. Middayexpress (talk) 16:35, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The category:lists of models shows them to be classified in various ways — by magazine cover seems to be a common way. These various ways are fine provided that the method of classification is to be found in sources per WP:LISTN. This is certainly the case for the list we discuss here and so we're good. Per WP:ALLORNOTHING, we are not required to sort models into some universal and uniform scheme. We just follow the sources. Warden (talk) 22:12, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

ALLORNOTHING and LISTN don't apply here because there are no other analogous lists on Wikipedia to begin with, and I don't believe there ever have been. This is literally the only list of models on the website, whether in Category:Lists of models or elsewhere, that is sorted according to skin color. All of the other lists of models that deal with identity, such as List of Nepalese models, are sorted according to ethnicity. Middayexpress (talk) 12:28, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Useful to anybody studying black women's history or modelling.♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 22:41, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Middayexpress makes some very good points here. Except one wonders if exclusion, by reason of self-expressed preference for ethnicity over skin-colour, would not rather devalue this list. But it's surprising to see it on the article blacklist, as it were. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:45, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
WP:ETHNICGROUP instructs to sort by ethnicity. On this basis, the nomination recommends reassigning the list's entries to new or existing ethnicity based lists, in the model of List of Nepalese models, List of Japanese bondage models, etc.. Several other respondents seem to agree. Middayexpress (talk) 12:28, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I'm sure no encyclopeadia wants to reinforce the facile myth that the world is made up of "black people" and "white people". Some might even regard such a popular dichotomy as racist. But I wonder whether, in the world of fashion, skin colour is generally seen as a more significant means of distinguishing between models, than is ethnicity. Even if it is, of course, we might be simply perpetuating an unfair discrimination if we mimic it here. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:37, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The article Black people says "The term black people is an everyday English-language phrase, often used by native speakers of English to refer to people of Sub-Saharan African descent." That is what we are talking about, a race, not an actual skin pigmentation. Dream Focus 13:40, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Um yes, I kinda guessed we weren't talking about actual skin pigmentation. I was suggesting that the world of fashion prefers to see people as part of a race than as part of any particular ethnic group (shock, horror.. ) p.s. where are the men (and maybe there's a UK/US difference going on here?) Martinevans123 (talk) 13:52, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The fashion world tends to see people in terms of "looks". So while one "look" is in one season, it could be out the next. That includes skin color, which is a more consistent trait amongst many of the concerned models than are facial features, bone structure, body type, hair form, etc.. (not to mention actual ancestry). Middayexpress (talk) 17:19, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

My point entirely. The question is, should we reflect that tendency? To make a (dubious but plausible) analogy - Wikipedia surely agrees that the geographical origins of a wine (as well as the grape variety) is quite important, but we still have articles for this and this. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:49, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, but there's no equivalent of the second link in this instance; just the first link. And where a wine is grown today may not necessarily have been where it originally evolved. Middayexpress (talk) 18:09, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You are quite right. It's not a very brilliant analogy! But, as I think as you would agree, the fashion industry doesn't really care about the vinyard, or the grape, or the origin in the grape. In fact, they just want something that shows off the pretty label. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:21, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dream Focus: Do I understand you correctly now when you state that the list is about race and not models of a particular skin color (as Phil, among several others who voted against the deletion/redirect, clearly wrote)? Also note that the dark skin article states in its introduction that "people with very dark skin are often referred to as black" and that "the presence of dark skin is bad genetic marker even among African populations[...] for example, dark-skinned Ethiopians share more genetic affinity with light-skinned Armenians and Norwegians, than with dark-skinned Bantu populations". The same could be said for the ancestry of many peoples from Somalia vs. other African populations (c.f. [16]). Middayexpress (talk) 17:19, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep based on past outcomes. This is the sort of list that we have had many arguments over, the end result of which has been to keep similar lists. The concept of a 'black model' is so well-accepted that it needs a list for our readers to comprehend the scope of that concept. Bearian (talk) 21:09, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Perry McCarthy. Courcelles 00:54, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Flat Out, Flat Broke: Formula 1 the Hard Way![edit]

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

Autobiography appears to fail the criteria specified at WP:NBOOK. Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 18:28, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - non-notable book; what little is of use here belongs in the article on McCarthy. --Orange Mike | Talk 21:45, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Perry McCarthy per Orangemike.—Midgrid (talk) 23:41, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge In seven years it has not b een significantly expanded, nor established its notability seperate to McCarthy. Merge with Perry McCarthy. --Falcadore (talk) 02:52, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 03:50, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 03:50, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Perry McCarthy still stubby after all these years. Britmax (talk) 10:28, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Perry McCarthy. Being a stub isn't really enough of a reason to delete an article, but the thing is that the book itself hasn't really gained that much coverage in RS. The book was largely ignored until he did his big reveal in the second edition and even then most of the coverage was about him rather than the book.Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 07:55, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy deleted as indubitable collection of promotionality. Peridon (talk) 18:27, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Stratogent[edit]

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

Obviously fails the notability policy; I haven't found any independent 3rd party source describing the company. Alfy32 (talk) 18:20, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I have found nothing independent of the company itself, thus failing to be notable ---- _nonsense ferret 18:46, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Alfy32 (talk) 22:39, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 03:47, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 03:47, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Challenger to the AWS and Rackspace business model. http://www.siliconindia.com/magazine_articles/Stratogent_Taking_system_Hosting_and_Operations_to_New_Heights-BATJ602140745.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.136.150.113 (talk) 17:48, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

being a challenger to something doesn't fall within any of the notability guidelines that I can see - see WP:GNG. I think your argument will have more weight if you can align it to these guidelines in terms of establishing notability of this company. You are likely to wish to refer specifically to WP:CORPDEPTH.---- _nonsense ferret 19:51, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete, unambiguous advertising, deliberately uninformative patent nonsense, and typical IT related spam:

a comprehensive, end-to-end operator of mission-critical software applications....
...differentiates its services by providing a blend of hosting and managed services taking responsibility for all layers of the IT environment. They offer datacenter managed services specifically customized to their customers' IT support needs. They design, implement, and sustain mission critical applications and infrastructure 24x7 by becoming an extension of their customers' IT team. Thus, their customers can enjoy a collaborative and personalized experience and are assured on industry best practices. Stratogent manages entire IT footprint or a specified area by assuming 100% responsibility including the coordination of vendors, patching, and weekend/afterhours monitoring.
....provides overall leadership and strategic direction. Chetan bootstrapped Stratogent and grew it to a multimillion dollar profitable business. He brings 20 years of experience managing business units and large scale technology on all continents.

The rest of the article is like that too. When the text is this floridly non-neutral and the entire article would require a top to bottom rewrite, it's too early to talk about notability. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 03:35, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Oxford University Chess Club. MBisanz ^talk 00:06, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

List of officers of the Oxford University Chess Club[edit]

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

Non-notable offices/positions, basically per Fram's comment on the talk page a while back. Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 18:17, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails on several points, as a list of people it fails to meet the requirements of WP:LISTPEOPLE. Most of the people on the list are entirely non-notable and, furthermore, unverifiable because much of the sourcing is using original research in old papers. *If* it is possible to verify their membership in a published source, maybe at best the notable members could be listed on Oxford University Chess Club. This is the sort of research that should be published on the club website, rather than Wikipedia. Sionk (talk) 19:33, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I do not think we need this level of detail. Also, most of the people are not notable otherwise. It is more appropriate for the club's website. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 19:42, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, a non notable position held by a number of notable people and many non notable ones. A redirect with a minimal merge (only listing the truly notable ones) is also acceptable. Fram (talk) 07:53, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per the above. AutomaticStrikeout (T • C) 19:02, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 03:22, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 03:22, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 03:22, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 03:22, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - excessive detail of no special significance. Should not be merged because so few of the officers are notable, and the non-notable ones would be excessive detail in the parent article.There should perhaps be at most one paragraph in the parent artcile listing notable officers, and who the current ones are.--A bit iffy (talk) 22:25, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Why should Wikipedia list the current officers but not past officers? I don't see any reason to believe the current officers are of greater encyclopedic interest than past officers. Deleting the whole lot seems more sensible. Quale (talk) 03:02, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge the presidents back to the article on the Oxford University Chess Club. Enough are notable to warrant it being encyclopaedic. The secretaries and treasurers can be deleted since few were notable, other than those who were subsequently president. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:32, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Good idea --merge per Peterkingiron. Bearian (talk) 21:10, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - information would fit well at Oxford University Chess Club. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 22:16, 29 January 2013 (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 Vinita Park, Missouri. (non-admin closure) TBr and ley ^{(what's up)} 01:23, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Mayor of Vinita Park, Missouri[edit]

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

Mayor of a town of 1,880 people is not a notable office. Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 18:14, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Vinita Park, Missouri. Definitely not article-worthy, but there's nothing wrong with the title itself, and it will be marginally useful if we mention the current mayor (and past mayors, if we can find a source) at the city's article. Nyttend (talk) 18:17, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no content worth including -- the "city:" has a population of only 1810. If we had a local wikipedia, this would possibly be relevant content, but its otherwise of much too narrow intetrest. DGG ( talk ) 03:01, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

R to Vinita Park, Missouri. JayJay^{What did I do?} 03:21, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Nyttend. AutomaticStrikeout (T • C) 18:51, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 03:30, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 03:30, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Missouri-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 03:30, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Vinita Park, Missouri per Nyttend. While the subject itself does not meet WP:GNG, it has obvious relevance to the target article.--JayJasper (talk) 20:38, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Vinita Park, Missouri Simply not enough coverage or content to warrant a standalone article. Mention in the history if required. Mkdw ^talk 09:59, 27 January 2013 (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 FC Seoul Reserves and Academy#U-14 Team - Osan Middle School FC. MBisanz ^talk 00:07, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Osan Middle School FC[edit]

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

Children's football team, not notable. C 679 17:37, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. C 679 18:15, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 23:43, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 23:43, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 23:43, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 09:15, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Never Delete - No evidence of notability. I explain that Osan Middles School FC is not just children's football team. This team is FC Seoul's U-14 and U-16 youth team and competed youth league from this year. Becaused This team launched this year, contents are not enough. Please wait.

I have a question. Why do you stalk FC Seoul articles or Non English country's Football stuff? There are many not notable articles about American football. As you know, America football only popular in America. But why English wiki user admit them and only attack Non English country's articls? If you serch this category, you can find many not notable american football team. Also contents are very few. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Defunct_American_football_teams Please should be fair to all country's articles.

Non English country's User can't win deletion debate. Because Mother tongue is not English and few user. Please take it easy. Remain them and many people will improve this articel. If not, then delete.Footwiks (talk) 09:41, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Can you show how this article meets notability guidelines? Probably not, because not a lot of youth teams from middle schools are the topic of multiple independent reliable sources. C 679 11:29, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect too, FC Seoul Reserves and Academy You don't create school football team articles, they fail under wikipedia N:FOOTY guidelines. Govvy (talk) 00:01, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to FC Seoul Reserves and Academy#U-14 Team - Osan Middle School FC, merging any salvagable content. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:39, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Not necessarily a bad-faith AfD, per se, but more a misguided one. This is a content dispute and the place to discuss that is at the article's talk page, not at AfD. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 19:04, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Jingle Cats[edit]

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

An article that has recently had around 80% blanked by TheRedPenOfDoom (talk · contribs) as " not acceptable", "advertorial" and "not sourced". Rather than this undiscussed blanking by the back door (same editor just did Marvin Suggs and Cat organ too) then let's discuss this out in the open at AfD, as we're supposed to. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:54, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WP:POINT much? -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 17:02, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It looks like the nom is making a good-faith nomination; I don't see any evidence of him trying to disrupt Wikipedia to make a point, as discussed in WP:POINT. At the same time, AfD is for discussing whether articles deserve to be in Wikipedia at all; the nomination is about a content dispute and contains no assertions of valid reasons for deletion. Thus the AfD nomination is flawed and should likely be withdrawn. Such content disputes are best handled on the talk page of the article. If the stakeholders cannot come to a consensus on the talk page, then dispute resolution, as described in WP:DISPUTE, might be called for. Good luck to both of you, Mark viking (talk) 21:54, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't believe nominations are essential at AfD because, "You may wish to delete this and if there is consensus to do so then away it goes" is always implicit. I'm just bringing it to others' attention – my own opinion might highlight a non-obvious issue, but never any more than that. A nominator's opinion doesn't carry any extra weight.

This isn't a content dispute. Just trimming a paragraph or two might have been, but here we're talking about an article being filleted of all encyclopedic prose, such that there's nothing left bar the record titles and a fail per WP:NOTDIR. It's quite hard to point the finger at why such an article should be deleted, when there's so little 'article' left to even delete!

I favour keeping the article, as it was initially. I cannot justify keeping the filleted article, as there's just nothing left. Mostly though, I don't believe individual editors should be blanking articles like this without going through AfD or similar discussion (Marvin Suggs too). That's too much like an "I know best and damn the rest of you" rejection of consensus. Andy Dingley (talk) 13:47, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

trimming, fileting, or going through with a machete to remove unsourced and promotional content requires no permission nor AfD. It is action that is specifically sanctioned by policy. If you dont like it, you may try and gain consensus to change policy or you may wish to be a part of some other project on the web that is not trying to develop an encyclopedia and thus does not have such requirements. And Mr. Dingley has been warned of creating such retaliatory AfDs -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 17:56, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's generally more constructive and collaborative to help to search for supporting sources, or even to add tags and ask for help from other editors, than to immediately start chopping material out in strict adherence with policy. No-one is saying that the rules are wrong, just that they can sometimes be applied in a more helpful way. And I really don't think threats and warnings, with well-respected and established editors, are a very good idea either. By the way, Jingle Cats looks very interesting. So, thanks Andy. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:04, 23 January 2013 (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. No prejudice against recreation if notability can be proven. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:40, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

IronmongeryDirect[edit]

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

Fails WP:CORPDEPTH. Promotional article that is sourced with press releases only. Google News search did not turn up anything better. Logical Cowboy (talk) 16:32, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This article is indeed a vitrine/directory. I wasn't luckier finding third-party references. Alfy32 (talk) 19:13, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - yeah, everything I could find was either a re-printed press release or an advertorial. The company seems to be quite upfront about that and almost all list the company as the "source" or "author". The three provided as sources for the article are among the few that seem to have been written by people not directly connected to the organisation, which is a start, but they still seem to be (essentially) re-prints of company announcements. I'm not seeing anything that would suggest the company has had the sort of significant impact on industry or depth of coverage that would help the subject meet WP:CORPDEPTH. Certainly not the sort of egregious promo-spam we're used to seeing, but I still don't think notability has been adequately established. Stalwart111 00:30, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Alfy32 (talk) 22:41, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 03:12, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- I will agree that this is a bad article, but what is the threshold for a compmny being significant. We have articles on many high street chains, but manufacturers and wholesalers tend to have a lower profile, so that they less easily get articles, though they may be economically at least as significant. This apparetnly has a tunrover of £18M. We do not have statements about capitalisation (or net assets) or profits, which might be a better test. But where does the boundary lie? Peterkingiron (talk) 17:50, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Thanks for your comments, but could you refer to some policy under WP:N? See also WP:AADD. Logical Cowboy (talk) 17:57, 26 January 2013 (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. There seems to be a general agreement that this article shouldn't stay as it is, but no agreement on exactly what to do about it. Discussions about conversion to a list (or other solutions) can continue on the article's talk page. Renominate for deletion in a few months if desired. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 15:51, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Styles of silat[edit]

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

Article is superfluous with content being able to be merged to main article. Full of non-authoritative references, article style poor, no clarity on the article. — billinghurst sDrewth 05:16, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and it is getting a bit to detailed for WP. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 05:45, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 13:03, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I am not sure deletion is the answer here. Merging definatly is not. Articles like these often serve a purpose in that they redirect the clutter away from the main article - which is also in danger of degenerating. That said the article needs a serious re-write.Peter Rehse (talk) 13:28, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Another Comment I say be bold and convert the entire article to a List with no text (like List of Martial arts). Right now vast sections are copy pasted from elsewhere making it a copyright issue.Peter Rehse (talk) 13:44, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I agree--make this article into a list. If any of the styles are notable, then create separate articles on them. Jakejr (talk) 05:42, 31 December 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, Courcelles 00:14, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Gong show 08:55, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep= Definitely something to this. I suspect we would have better luck finding hits on Malay websites, such as this . PortlandOregon97217 (talk) 10:02, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Convert to list I agree with Peter and Jakejr. Portland's source just supports their position--Pentjak Silat already has an article. Either the style has enough for its own article or it doesn't. Mdtemp (talk) 16:47, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mediran (t • c) 10:20, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm not sure whether to vote to delete this article or convert it into a list. I am sure that this article shouldn't remain as it is. Large parts of it are unsourced. I think a list might be more useful than outright deletion. Papaursa (talk) 22:06, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mediran (t • c) 10:54, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2013 January 22. Snotbot t • c » 16:30, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Teaching about the different styles of popular martial arts is well within the ambition of an encyclopedia. I suggest we keep the page: perhaps this debate will have encouraged editors to clean-up the article, remove unreferenced comments, add a well-deserved general/historical description and references, and improve the style. Transforming the article into a list and thus deleting large portions of its contents seems a bit drastic. Alfy32 (talk) 19:02, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia! As a new editor you might want to read some of WP's basic guidelines. In particular I'd recommend the ones on notability WP:N, reliable sources WP:RS, and verifiability WP:V. As for your comments on this particular aritcle, I would point out that it's been tagged as needing sources for 6 years so I doubt this discussion will have any impact. The only recent additions are for the section on pencak silat and that style already has its own article. That's my point--if a style has sources it should have its own article and if there aren't any sources it doesn't meet the criteria to be on Wikipedia. This article just lumps everything together, including the styles that already have their own articles. A list might be useful, but largely unsourced sections do not show notability. Mdtemp (talk) 15:21, 25 January 2013 (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. There are a number of sources provided by a number of editors to indicate the meeting of significant coverage requirements, according to consensus. (non-admin closure) TBr and ley ^{(what's up)} 01:26, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Windows Media Encoder[edit]

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

Hi. This article is not notable as it does not supply evidence significant coverage in reliable secondary sources. Looks like a discontinued piece of Microsoft software that never took off. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 16:14, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 03:10, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Is notable:

as Microsoft software that was available and current at one time; still available for download;
Microsoft still makes patches available;
used by a significant number of users. See Google search for "Windows Media Encoder", about a million hits (first few pages are artificially promoted download sites, but plenty of users), plenty in last year. Random things by users: [17][18][19].

May need more text asserting notability - that could be discussed in article's Talk page - but shouldn't be deleted.

Pol098 (talk) 17:05, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. First and foremost, please stick to standard message formatting, so that others can contribute without disruption. As for the article, please see WP:GNG and WP:Search engine test. Your evidences are not valid to establish notability. To begin with relation to Microsoft does not automatically bring notability. Also, YouTube and GitHub are not even acceptable sources. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 07:26, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The article definitely needs to be improved, but significant coverage in reliable secondary sources does exist and thus the article has potential. A Google Books search returned multiple results that appear reliable, including a review published in PC Magazine. I would also note that this software appears to have been more popular about a decade ago than it is currently, so recommended places to look for additional sources with significant coverage are computer magazines and books from the late 90s / early 2000s. --Mike Agricola (talk) 18:15, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. This is called "passing coverage". Per WP:GNG, we need significant coverage. Please find sources that can actually be used in the article to verify its contents (although I know that you cannot; I tried.) Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 07:26, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The review linked by Mike is most certainly significant, not passing, coverage, as are many of the first few dozen of those Google Books results. Please don't imagine that your failure to find usable sources means that nobody else will be capable of doing so. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:28, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I looked a bit further afield and found three additional sources which I consider to contain reliable, significant, independent, coverage. In my estimation, further investigation could uncover yet more sources:

(1) PC Magazine (November 7, 2000): An entire review discussing Windows Media Encoder 7.

(2) Tech Review: What's New in Windows Media Encoder 7 was published in Streaming Media. The site's "About" appear to indicate that it's a mainstream online media outlet. WP:RSFS states that online media articles are "generally accepted as a reliable source of software-related information."

(3) Hands-On Guide to Windows Media (CRC Press): Chapter 6 is entitled "Encoding for Windows Media". Based upon the Google Books preview, it appears largely dedicated to a discussion of Windows Media Encoder. --Mike Agricola (talk) 19:20, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi.

I hope I did not make you uncomfortable with my replies. In a last AfD, I nominated an article for GNG, everyone came and said "Keep" and I said nothing (I thought "okay, if community has consensus...") until people started taking potshots at me in addition to saying "Keep". So, I thought I'd better get a little more verbal. So, I just say this once: In my humble opinion, this amount of coverage for a Microsoft product is not enough. And now, I will be silent and let community decide. If it is kept in the end, it is excellent.

Best regards,

Codename Lisa (talk) 07:35, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Before I choose my verdict, I would like to see whether anyone considers [20] and [21] confer notability. Although according to the Google search this has been covered pretty widely in the past, many of the references are quickly dying, and already the ZDNet results are dead.--Jasper Deng (talk) 00:34, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

[4] is a reliable source with significant coverage; InformIT is owned by Pearson, an academic and educational publisher (and is independent of Microsoft). I'm not sure about [5] though as it's more of a "how to" guide and I'm not very familiar with broadcastnewsroom.com. I came across some additional sources including a review published by ZDNet Belgium (in Dutch). Jon Udell's columns in InfoWorld have also repeatedly discussed it (e.g. here, here, and here).

It may also be worth mentioning that "notability is not temporary; once a topic has been the subject of 'significant coverage' in accordance with the general notability guideline, it does not need to have ongoing coverage" (WP:N#TEMP). I've also participated in some video-game related AfDs where consensus held that significant coverage in twenty year old printed magazines satisfied WP:GNG even though the games in question received very little current attention in reliable media sources. Admittedly this is my first time participating in a (non video-game) software AfD, but it does seem to me that WP:NSOFT inclusion criterion #1 ("discussed in reliable sources as significant in its particular field") is met. --Mike Agricola (talk) 15:05, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I'm convinced of notability by sources found in books, including several such as The Technology of Video and Audio Streaming that are not MS-specific. And it has been a component over several server iterations. It may well be on the way out, but I think the implicit idea that it has to be current is a red herring. Even if it were discontinued tomorrow, I would say it meets the notability threshold. Whether there is enough to say about it however is a different matter. I could perhaps support a merge, maybe to Windows Media Services. Mcewan (talk) 17:46, 27 January 2013 (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. ·Add§hore· ^{Talk To Me!} 09:34, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dublin Samaritans[edit]

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

Notability: Dublin Samaritans is not notable of itself, and everything that is notable about it is already covered in the more-thorough article Samaritans (charity).

Delete Well established principle that the local chapters of organizations are not apropriate Wikipediaarticles. DGG ( talk ) 03:02, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The only thing that might mitigate against this is that, unlike many organisations, local Samaritans branches are independent charities. But I don't think that's important enough to outweigh the principle that DGG mentions. OpenToppedBus - Talk to the driver 12:01, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 03:04, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 03:04, 24 January 2013 (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. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 03:18, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

List of the fastest finishes in mixed martial arts contests[edit]

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

Original research in its entirely. LlamaAl (talk) 14:21, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless someone finds reliable sources. —Rutebega (talk) 14:38, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:OR and unsourced JayJay^{What did I do?} 03:16, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:OR and WP:NOTSTATSBOOK should apply. Mazter00 (talk) 13:47, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 03:02, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 03:02, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per JayJay and LlamaAl. Luchuslu (talk) 02:52, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unsourced article that appears to be original research. Mdtemp (talk) 15:30, 25 January 2013 (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) 21:42, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Rocky McCord[edit]

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

Non-notable actor. Only one reference recorded even in IMDB. Other searches aren't revealing anything for him. (Contested PROD) NtheP (talk) 13:54, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The editor who created the article contested the BLPPROD and added a trivial imdb link. Obviously fails WP:BASIC. Alfy32 (talk) 19:33, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 02:51, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 02:51, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 02:51, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – to nominator, for future reference if you place a BLPPROD and it's contested you are still allowed to place an ordinary PROD per Sticky prod. Regards ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 02:51, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, I don't know which came first the IMDb info or the article, but they clearly mirror each other, which should be some failure of Bio. — ^Wylie_Coyote 17:43, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - badly fails WP:ENT and WP:NACTOR. One minor speaking role is one film does not make one notable. The onyl news sources that I could find online refer to a minor-league baseball or softball player. Bearian (talk) 21:13, 29 January 2013 (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. This seems to be becoming a haven for solid H20 Spartaz ^Humbug! 16:50, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Chameleon (film)[edit]

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

Completing nomination for 122.17.60.88, rationale is as follows: The film may not meet the criteria of WP:GNG, because it has not received significant coverage in reliable sources. Also, it does not seem to satisfy WP:NOTFILM#Other evidence of notability. I have no opinion. Hut 8.5 13:16, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

~~Weak delete~~ Keep I'm really struggling to find any source for this film, which appears to be non-notable. I suspect there must be something in print from the time of release, but aside from a couple of things of uncertain length in Google Books snippet view, not a popular movie. Maybe newspaper libraries would show more, but the NY Times and LA Times have articles online from this period and I can't see anything in there. --Colapeninsula (talk) 13:27, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I formerly voted delete, but others did better than me at finding sources. This appears to now meet WP:NOTFILM. Good work. --Colapeninsula (talk) 17:23, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:GNG IronKnuckle (talk) 13:42, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Erik (talk | contribs) 15:11, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. Whilst a low-key film, reviews do exist [22]. --Rob Sinden (talk) 15:52, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I included TV Guide in the article. Erik (talk | contribs) 15:59, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: In addition to what I've added to the article, this appears to be a relatively substantial review, and this mentions LaPaglia and the use of makeup. Erik (talk | contribs) 15:53, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per sufficient coverage from various reliable sources. Some are not readily available to cite (such as the makeup book), but that should not be a strike against notability. Erik (talk | contribs) 15:59, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:PROFESSIONAL, enough material from reliable sources to write a Reception section. I've added two book sources. Receiving critical commentary in a newspaper, two guides and three movie books should be enough to pass WP:GNG. Diego (talk) 16:06, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per improvements since nomination. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:40, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per article inprovements by Erik Good job.. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 05:56, 23 January 2013 (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 Close. Per AN/I discussion https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&oldid=534361536#Proposal_2 Monty ₈₄₅ 18:47, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Jim Zumbo[edit]

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

Non notable person, fails WP:GNG IronKnuckle (talk) 12:41, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Senra (talk) 17:28, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The present article's a mess. His notability would lie in his TV series and 20+ books, not in a controversy where he annoyed a few people who like hunting with assault rifles. --Colapeninsula (talk) 13:10, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree the article is a mess. Which is why it should not be on wikipedia. IronKnuckle (talk) 13:12, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. "It's a mess" is not a valid rationale to delete. Please read WP:RUBBISH. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 16:22, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You have your right to your opinion, and I have the right to disagree. I gave my reasons in the nomination. IronKnuckle (talk) 16:29, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You did, but unfortunately your reasoning is rather brief and amounts to little more than "It's not notable". Can you clarify a little about your assertion of lack of notability, including a set of news and book searches you tried? What is your opinion on this source about Zumbo? Or this? Or this, this, this this or this? Keep Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 16:39, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

keep major publications and telivision shows publishing his work. Major publications commenting on him, especially the NYTimes with the "Overkill article. clearly passes WP:GNG Gaijin42 (talk) 17:05, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The references in the article show enough notability to easily meet WP:GNG. - Sudo Ghost 18:36, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Calling "The New Yorker" a primary source indicates that this is not a good-faith nomination SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:26, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas C. Wales[edit]

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

Non notable deceased person who fails WP:GNG. Article lacks sources, and the sources it does have are primary sources. IronKnuckle (talk) 12:37, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Murdered federal prosecutor. Looks notable enough to me.--Auric talk 15:59, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
snow keep One of a set of questionable AFDs against gun control people and orgs, the nominator seems unclear on what a primary source is here. Amble news coverage means sufficient notability. Mangoe (talk) 16:14, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well it may be questionable, but it is in good faith. Some people think it should be kept, and other's believe it should be deleted. IronKnuckle (talk) 16:16, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy Keep per WP:SNOW. Editor has been blocked for disruptive editing over AfD nominations. (non-admin closure) Mkdw ^talk 18:31, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nicholas Spaeth[edit]

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

Non notable person, fails WP:GNG, poorly sourced article. IronKnuckle (talk) 12:33, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Senra (talk) 17:28, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, bordering on speedy keep. He was North Dakota Attorney General, a statewide elected office, for seven years, and therefore clearly passes WP:POLITICIAN. The article already has sources, and even the quickest look at the GBooks, GNews, and GScholar results shows that there are many, many sources about him. His notability is not in question and there is no other reason to delete, rather than expand, this article.--Arxiloxos (talk) 16:14, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep, meets WP:POLITICIAN as the former North Dakota Attorney General. EricSerge (talk) 16:52, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 22:14, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Cássio Ferreira[edit]

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

This player fails WP:GNG (due to lack of significant coverage) and WP:NFOOTBALL (as he hasn't yet played in a fully-proessional league - simply being contracted to a club is not enough). Please note the BLPPROD issue was raised at WT:AN by the article creator. Giant Snowman 12:24, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 12:25, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails notability criteria (✉→BWilkins←✎) 12:28, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - He has not received significant coverage or played in a fully pro league, meaning the article fails WP:GNG and WP:NSPORT. Sir Sputnik (talk) 12:42, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - He will receive significant coverage as played in a fully pro league, because he was brought to club to play games, not only to fill roster. Official game of Croatian 1 HNL will be held 16.02.2013 so i propose that you leave article for few weeks. I ask you to find some kind of loophole to keep article or assistence in improvement. It is easy to delete work. User:Toni Tomas (talk) 14:49, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It is also easy to restore work - should the article be deleted, we can un-delete it in mere seconds once he makes his professional debut. However, until he actually does that, he is not notable. Giant Snowman 14:01, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Userfy until 16 February 2013 per a common outcome of such tricky issues, making sure to tag with ((userspace draft)). Bearian (talk) 00:26, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 02:32, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 02:32, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 02:32, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete We have no way of knowing if he plays in the game until he plays in it. It's that simple. DGG ( talk ) 06:23, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG due to lack of coverage in reliable sources. Also fails WP:NFOOTY as he hasn't played in a fully pro league or represented his country at senior level. No prejudice against recreation once one of the criteria is met. Mentoz86 (talk) 20:17, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Bad-faith nomination. Drmies (talk) 18:20, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Bob Ricker[edit]

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

Non notable deceased person who fails WP:GNG. Article lacks sources. IronKnuckle (talk) 12:23, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Senra (talk) 17:27, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep added 2 sources, more are available. Remember WP:NTEMP.--Auric talk 16:14, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Does he pass the WP:GNG? IronKnuckle (talk) 16:17, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If he's received significant coverage in multiple third-party sources (in this case, PBS, the New York Times and the Huffington Post), then yes, he meets the general guideline. ★ Bald Zebra ★ ^talk 16:26, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Then why were there so few sources? Notable articles should have ALOT of sources, do you agree? IronKnuckle (talk) 16:34, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"A lot" is subjective. Typically, 3-5 is enough to sway people to believe it meets the WP:GNG. Sergecross73 msg me 16:50, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. A lack of sources is not cause for deletion. If there is evidence to suggest that there are no sources to be found, that's different. Here, we have several reliable sources added to the article since its nomination, and those sources are sufficient to show some notability. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 17:25, 22 January 2013 (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. (I'm involved with the voting, so if any admin wants to undo this and give me a slap, I give full consent for them to do so.) Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 17:24, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Amy Purdy[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Non notable actress/athlete, fails WP:ATHLETE, WP:NSPORT, and WP:GNG, article is poorly sourced and has primary sources. IronKnuckle (talk) 12:19, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Obviously meets WP:GNG.[23][24][25][26][27] Nomination solely due to her apparent support for gun control.--Colapeninsula (talk) 13:15, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Actually she was nominated for failing 3 wikipedia policies for notability. IronKnuckle (talk) 13:18, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

How does someone with detailed coverage in multiple articles in reliable sources fail WP:GNG? --Colapeninsula (talk) 13:20, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

How does she pass WP:ATHLETE WP:NSPORT? IronKnuckle (talk) 13:25, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment She only needs to pass one notability criteria for inclusion. Please check WP:BEFORE and try not to use AfD for WP:POVPUSH. Mass nominations only add to the AfD backlog we have. Funny ^Pika! 14:09, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I dont believe she passes any of them, which is why I nominated this article for deletion, no need for unnecessary pages like this on wikipedia. BTW Funny, please assume good faith. IronKnuckle (talk) 14:19, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please read WP:COMPETENCE before using WP:AGF. Keep Passes WP:GNG based on the BBC reference and the sources Colapeninsula previously found. Funny ^Pika! 17:05, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - the sources provided on the article plus the ones presented by Colapeninsula above are more than enough to satisfy the general notability guideline, regardless of whether she meets any specific guidelines or not. ★ Bald Zebra ★ ^talk 15:28, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - a simple news search reveals a ton of hits. I would challenge the nominator to go through the first 20 of these and explain in detail why each and every one is not reliable or otherwise cannot be used to establish notability. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 15:48, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Commentator: Nominator was just blocked, I think this can be closed.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 17:19, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy Keep per WP:SK #2. Editor has been blocked for disruptive editing over AfD nominations. (non-admin closure) Mkdw ^talk 18:36, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

David Kairys[edit]

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

Non notable lawyer, fails WP:GNG. IronKnuckle (talk) 12:09, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Senra (talk) 17:27, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Meets WP:SCHOLAR #5 as he formerly held a named chair, James E. Beasley Chair (2001-07)[28] --Colapeninsula (talk) 12:17, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I dont think that counts as "major institution of higher education and research". But we'll see. IronKnuckle (talk) 12:29, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, per WP:SCHOLAR #5. Temple University is an accredited public research university with over 30,000 students, it counts as a "major institution of higher education and research". EricSerge (talk) 17:30, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy Keep per WP:SNOW. Editor has been blocked for disruptive editing over AfD nominations. (non-admin closure) Mkdw ^talk 18:25, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Helmke[edit]

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

Non notable person, poorly sourced article, primary sources, fails WP:GNG IronKnuckle (talk) 12:06, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Senra (talk) 17:26, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep: Notable person, bullshit nomination.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 17:09, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please explain... IronKnuckle (talk) 17:13, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You explain yourself, you miscreant!! He's notable, do a little research before I set you up with Manti's girlfriend!--Milowent • ^hasspoken 17:16, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And look, you were just blocked, too bad too sad. sniffle.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 17:17, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as he appears in multiple reliable sources as seen in the article. Milowent, please calm down a few notches and just give a level-headed rationale based on policy. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 17:28, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep. Subject was Mayor of one of the largest cities in Indiana, and is discussed in multiple Reliable Sources - and, indeed, those sources were in the article at the time of its nomination. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 17:35, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Per SNOW and common sense. Drmies (talk) 18:17, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Tom Diaz[edit]

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

Non notable gun control advocate, fails WP:GNG, poorly sourced. IronKnuckle (talk) 11:58, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Senra (talk) 17:26, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Article was formerly lacking in references but now has multiple sources from 1999 to 2013. Notable: widely considered an expert, subject of several media articles. --Colapeninsula (talk) 12:48, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment And what would make him an expert? Expert on what per say? What policy based reason should this article be kept? I dont think because you think he is an "expert" cuts it. IronKnuckle (talk) 13:10, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Because he's notable due to coverage in several media articles, as I said in the above comment. --Colapeninsula (talk) 13:17, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Are they reliable sources? IronKnuckle (talk) 13:19, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. --Colapeninsula (talk) 15:25, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - the sources provided on the article are more than enough to satisfy the general notability guidelines. ★ Bald Zebra ★ ^talk 15:40, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Looks notable enough to me.--Auric talk 15:47, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

* Comment How so? 16:02, 22 January 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by IronKnuckle (talk • contribs)

Keep - This nominator, judging on their other nominations, has a poor grasp on the WP:GNG or WP:BEFORE. Keep per Colapeninsula's sources. Sergecross73 msg me 16:05, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per sourcing improvements since nomination. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:17, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Has articles in Dallas News, The Los Angeles Times and CNN. Each article has several paragraphs directly relating to Diaz. Meets WP:GNG in my view. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 16:18, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Snow Keep. Meets GNG. Thanks to Ritchie for more sources. Ish dar ian 16:54, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, but the sources were ones already in the article when I looked at it - I just took the three best ones to demonstrate notability. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 16:59, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy Keep per WP:SNOW. Editor has been blocked for disruptive editing over AfD nominations. (non-admin closure) Mkdw ^talk 18:27, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Million Mom March[edit]

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

Non notable event, fails WP:GNG, article only has one source and it's a primary source. IronKnuckle (talk) 11:49, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Senra (talk) 17:25, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - the article may be poorly sourced right now but the subject is clearly notable, mostly due to the large turnout and media coverage that it received at the time. A quick look in the article's history shows there were more references which have been removed for one reason or another. Searching Google produces 118000 ghits including articles posted by Time and Huffington Post. ★ Bald Zebra ★ ^talk 16:03, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Does it have lasting significance? IronKnuckle (talk) 16:07, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Notability is not temporary - it doesn't matter whether it received media coverage yesterday or 13 years ago. ★ Bald Zebra ★ ^talk 16:21, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: At the very least the article needs cleaning to remove promotional phrases such as "the enthusiasm didn't last long".Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 16:15, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Snow Keep - Has clearly received significant coverage in many independent reliable sources. For starters, click on the GNews link at top, then read some of the articles from the search results therein. Passes WP:N. Northamerica1000^(talk) 17:30, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The article has gone through an almost complete re-write, as the previous incarnation was more than a little promotional in favor of the group. It's not nearly complete, as there's a lot that needs to be added in. The criticism section needs to be more fully fleshed out, as does the history section. I know that it's still active, but through the Brady Campaign. MMMs are still being held in other states, so it's still active. As far as lasting significance, I found a University of Mississippi book that has over 20 pages devoted solely to the MMM and was published in 2011. It looks to be quite thorough, so if anyone wants to flip through the GBooks bit and flesh out the article accordingly, this would be a good source to work with. But as far as notability goes, it's notable. It just needed and still needs work.Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 17:34, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. "Poorly sourced", when the first words in the first reference, a Washington Post article, are "Mary Leigh Blek"? SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:01, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Mary Leigh Blek[edit]

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

Non notable person, fails WP:GNG, poorly sourced article. IronKnuckle (talk) 11:43, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Poorly sourced? The article cites the Washington Post and PBS, both reliable sources. If the Bell campaign is as large as claimed, then she is notable as the cofounder. IronKnuckle, why have you nominated so many pro-gun control articles for deletion? I think you went through the gun-control articles hunting for ones that you could try to delete. Howicus (talk) 13:54, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Please assume good faith Howicus, I only want to clean up unnessesary articles on wikipedia. There is only 4 sources to this article. IronKnuckle (talk) 14:00, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep - Appears to be either a bad-faith nominations, or someone with a terrible grasp on the WP:GNG. Take your pick, but either way, no logical grounds for deletion here. Sergecross73 msg me 15:29, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's not bad faith, the article seemed inadequate and unimprovable. IronKnuckle (talk) 15:47, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy Keep per WP:SK #2 and WP:POLITICIAN; United States Assistant Attorney General. Editor has been blocked for disruptive editing over AfD nominations. (non-admin closure) Mkdw ^talk 18:40, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Eleanor D. Acheson[edit]

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

Non notable lawyer who fails WP:GNG IronKnuckle (talk) 11:38, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Senra (talk) 17:25, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Clearly notable, obvious bad-faith nomination Acroterion (talk) 15:33, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Americans for Democratic Action[edit]

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

Non notable organization, fails WP:GNG, poorly sourced, short article not worthy of a page on wikipedia. IronKnuckle (talk) 11:27, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. IronKnuckle (talk) 13:53, 22 January 2013 (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 Close. Per AN/I discussion https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&oldid=534361536#Proposal_2 Monty ₈₄₅ 18:49, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Americans for Gun Safety Foundation[edit]

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

Non notable gun control defunct organization, poorly sourced short article, fails WP:GNG IronKnuckle (talk) 11:20, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. IronKnuckle (talk) 13:51, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Senra (talk) 17:25, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

redirect to Third Way (think tank) which they have been absorbed by. Gaijin42 (talk) 17:02, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thats a good idea! IronKnuckle (talk) 17:06, 22 January 2013 (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 Close. Per AN/I discussion https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&oldid=534361536#Proposal_2 Monty ₈₄₅ 18:46, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Americans for Responsible Solutions[edit]

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

Non notable gun control organization/super PAC, poorly sourced, using primary sources, fails WP:GNG article is too short. IronKnuckle (talk) 11:14, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. IronKnuckle (talk) 13:54, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Senra (talk) 17:24, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. SNOW, and bad-faith nomination. Drmies (talk) 18:20, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Violence Policy Center[edit]

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

Non notable gun control organization, fails WP:GNG, uses primary sources. IronKnuckle (talk) 11:08, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Senra (talk) 17:24, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per IronKnuckle. Maydewsl (talk) 13:29, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. IronKnuckle (talk) 13:48, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep While I disagree with their politics, it would seem that they do meet WP:GNG. I would agree that refs in the article could be improved, but that should not be too hard, and is not a reason to delete the entire article. A simple Google search shows that this group is widely cited in the media, so their positions can be divined from these statements. EricSerge (talk) 13:53, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The article uses many primary sources, how much of that media is reliable sources and not routine coverage? IronKnuckle (talk) 13:57, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Plenty of reliably sourced coverage. If "too many first party sources are being used", then fix it, as the coverage is clearly out there. Please see WP:BEFORE. Sergecross73 msg me 15:32, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I couldnt find a way to improve it, deletion was the only option. IronKnuckle (talk) 15:46, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Can you clarify what steps you took in trying to find a way to improve it? I don't see you making a single edit to the article beyond the nomination. Seems like you came to that conclusion awfully fast. Sergecross73 msg me 16:01, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a quick thinker, but I thoroughly analyzed it before taking action. IronKnuckle (talk) 16:06, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's not a real answer. What steps beyond "thinking" did you do? Sergecross73 msg me 16:17, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I analyzed it against wikipedia policy and made up my mind. IronKnuckle (talk) 16:25, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If that's all the detail you can go into, it's pretty clear you're bluffing or making this up as you go along. Your explanation has all the depth of "My dog ate my homework". Sergecross73 msg me 16:46, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. As much as I disagree with their politics, they are nevertheless notable. Niteshift36 (talk) 16:48, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
keep Existing sources may be not good enough, but many valid sources do exist. They are quoted often in top level political debates and studies on gun violence. Gaijin42 (talk) 16:59, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Studies? What studies? Where? and by whom? Why wasnt this in the article? IronKnuckle (talk) 17:03, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Obviously, with 4,670 results on Google books alone it passes. Darkness Shines (talk) 17:30, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy Keep per WP:SNOW. Editor has been blocked for disruptive nominations and editing. (non-admin closure) Mkdw ^talk 18:55, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Josh Sugarmann[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Non notable gun control advocate, fails WP:GNG, poorly sourced, self published sources. IronKnuckle (talk) 10:58, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per improvements since nomination. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:30, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Recent improvements demonstrate WP:GNG. EricSerge (talk) 16:44, 22 January 2013 (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. MBisanz ^talk 00:07, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Kappa Phi Gamma[edit]

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

Non-notable sorority. Very small, no real national presence; only 5 chapters nationwide, not recognized by National Panhellenic Conference or any national Greek umbrella organization affiliation. Fails general notability guideline and WP:ORG. GrapedApe (talk) 12:58, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 03:52, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 03:52, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 03:52, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as organization appears to be national in scope with 5 chapters and 9 colonies. Activity of organization does get some coverage by reliable sources. - Dravecky (talk) 07:57, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I fail to see how a 115 word blurb, that without a byline, and is probably a copy and paste job from a press release, signals "significant coverage in reliable sources."--GrapedApe (talk) 23:17, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ·Add§hore· ^{Talk To Me!} 22:33, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete without prejudice to re-creation later. This article is almost entirely unsourced, the only sources cited are not independent, and much of the content is promotional rather than encyclopedic. That said, however, if it is possible to write a better article about this organization based on reliable independent sources, that should be allowed. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 01:32, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the article as it stands is poor, but it would be better to improve it instead of removing it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ducknish (talk • contribs)
- Will you be the one to improve it? Which sources will you use?--GrapedApe (talk) 23:55, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mediran (t • c) 10:57, 22 January 2013 (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. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 15:54, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Luis Livingstone[edit]

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

Unremarkable musician. Fails WP:GNG. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 05:38, 19 December 2012 (UTC) Delicious carbuncle (talk) 05:38, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 17:37, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 17:37, 21 December 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, Courcelles 05:47, 26 December 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, Courcelles 00:22, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Yash ^[talk] 04:19, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, non-notable musician. Some chance that Dr. Livingstone, Supongo may be notable though, but I'm not sure how to check if they ever charted. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:12, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ·Add§hore· ^{Talk To Me!} 22:29, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mediran (t • c) 10:56, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Spam from his record company. duffbeerforme (talk) 11:24, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Just because the article was created by User:YfinDiscos and he released an album on the label Y Fin Discos?[29] I'm sure that's simply coincidence! Dr. Livingstone, supongo did release an album on a Spanish subsidiary of Warners[30], which is the reason I'm not saying non-notable right now. --Colapeninsula (talk) 22:02, 22 January 2013 (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 03:11, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've deleted the article, as per this close. Note that it was tagged in May 2012 for a transwiki over to the English Wiktionary - though that does not appear to have happened. If someone plans to transwiki this article, leave a message on my talk page or at WP:REFUND and someone will get you a copy. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 16:04, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Swadesh list of Lezgic languages[edit]

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

This page was created over three years ago to be in the style of Swadesh list of Slavic languages, which has both a list and some prose covering the phonological history of the language family in question. In those three years, not even the list element has been completed. The page has been marked to be transwikied to Wiktionary, but there's no actual content to transfer since the lexical items on this page are in IPA transcription. — Æµ§œš¹ _{[ãːɱ ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɪ̃ə̃nlɪ]} 15:51, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related page for the same reason:

Comment: For a related deletion, see WP:Articles for deletion/Swadesh list of Tsezic languages. — Æµ§œš¹ _{[ãːɱ ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɪ̃ə̃nlɪ]} 15:51, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:25, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:25, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. There have been a few recent publications on East Caucasian/Daghestanian/Lezgian languages that might be appropriate sources, but I'm not convinced that Wikipedia is the right venue for this. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Swadesh lists. Regarding transwiki, see wikt:Appendix:Swadesh lists. Cnilep (talk) 02:54, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, KTC (talk) 00:05, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no evidence that the topic (not the languages, but the Swadesh list of it) is a notable topic in itself. Fram (talk) 09:30, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or move to Wiktionary. This is something that could have been placed in the Lezgic languages article, but IMO it's easier for the reader if it's split off. There are lots of these Swadesh lists on WP, and perhaps they should all be moved to Wk, with appropriate links from WP articles. That's what we decided to do w all Swadesh lists back in 2006.[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Swadesh lists] Any reason to think consensus has changed?

I don't understand the comment that the IPA is not content. Is there consensus at Wk that IPA entries is inappropriate? — kwami (talk) 01:45, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, there are only three Swadesh list articles on WP (two of which are covered in this nomination). I've never seen IPA-only entries at Wiktionary for languages that have writing systems. Is that really a place for them? — Æµ§œš¹ _{[ãːɱ ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɪ̃ə̃nlɪ]} 02:19, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It is my understanding that Wiktionary generally uses standard orthographies (e.g. Devanagari for Hindi, Latin for English, etc.), but may also include phonetic transcription or Latin transliteration in Swadesh lists. Cnilep (talk) 01:57, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see any IPA-only columns for languages that have writing systems, though I suppose if Wiktionary will take our little red-headed step-child they can take it. It would have to be manually inserted though, since it's too big for a bot to do it. — Æµ§œš¹ _{[ãːɱ ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɪ̃ə̃nlɪ]} 02:38, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ‑Scottywong | prattle _ 18:15, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mediran (t • c) 10:55, 22 January 2013 (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 00:07, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Tom Osenton[edit]

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

Fails WP:BIO. Osenton does not meet notability guidelines. Very few secondary sources, and those that exist are passing references at best. The article on his theory of "Innovation Saturation" was already deleted per WP:SOAP. Many of the edits to this page were done by the subject himself, also failing WP:COI PianoDan (talk) 03:13, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Probably notable, but sourcing is inadequite. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 09:34, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That argument makes no sense. You don't delete an article just because the sourcing is inadequate: you improve the sourcing. --Colapeninsula (talk) 17:57, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:26, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:26, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:26, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 00:09, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Looked for material on this guy. Wasn't able to find anything. Non-notable. NickCT (talk) 21:13, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as recently trimmed and edited. The publisher of Sporting News is definitely Notable. GeorgeLouis (talk) 21:10, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Why? There are many publishers of magazines that are not themselves notable. Which portion of WP:BIO does he satisfy? PianoDan (talk) 01:37, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mediran (t • c) 10:14, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep Just about notable as an author for the three books. Being published by the FT carries a certain weight. Taken together with the Sporting News thing, I am just about persuaded. Mcewan (talk) 11:54, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merely writing books does not make you notable if those books have not received adequate coverage in secondary sources. PianoDan (talk) 13:54, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mediran (t • c) 10:54, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I found a couple of reviews of one of his books[31][32] but I don't think this is enough to pass WP:AUTHOR. I couldn't find any sources online, and the CRM.com source on its own isn't enough to persuade me that the subject passes WP:BASIC. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 17:19, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Almost, but does not quite, clear the bar; and almost only counts in horseshoes, hand grenades, and H-bombs. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:47, 29 January 2013 (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 of Florida#Career placement. Content was WP:BOLDly merged to the target; given the !vote, low participation, and attribution requirements, closing this as redirect seems the logical result at this point. (It's worth noting that redirects take up less server space than deletion.) The Bushranger _{One ping only} 09:51, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

University of Florida Career Resource Center[edit]

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

That this was ranked as good by Princeton Review doesn't mean the resource center gets to have its own article. I've never seen an article on a notable career resource center, and this is not one that deserves it. Drmies (talk) 05:19, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:MILL student service similar to ones found in most colleges. It's mentioned in J. Wayne Reitz Union, as it probably should be, but I don't think it's worth a redirect. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 05:42, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 09:06, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 09:06, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect. Subject is clearly notable based on the results of a simple Google News search and the WP:GNG criteria, but I question whether there is enough general interest encyclopedic content to justify a stand-alone article. Any encyclopedic content not already duplicated by the J. Wayne Reitz Student Union or main University of Florida articles should be merged to the main University of Florida article, with a section-specific redirect to the same. Career placement is a key function of the university worthy of mention in the main article. As for the subject not being "worth a redirect," I gently remind Andrew that redirects are cheap (see essay "Wikipedia:Redirects are cheap"). Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 09:23, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. Should be redirected to an appropriate article. Information provided is informative and notable according to Princeton Review. Jccort (talk) 13:43, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Either delete or redirect to J. Wayne Reitz Union, per nom and Jccort. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:19, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mediran (t • c) 10:53, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not even worth redirection. A routine student service center at a university. The fact that the center exists is in the main article, and that's all the content needed. it's not a reasonable search term, so no need of a redirection. Redirects are cheap, but redirects when there's no significant information are confusing and have a negative value. DGG ( talk ) 03:11, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. In the spirit of BRD, and given that no one is advocating that we keep this subject as a stand-alone article, I have taken the liberty of merging the content to a two-paragraph section within the main University of Florida article, which is where it probably should have gone in the first place. Given the relatively trivial difference between a redirect and deletion at this point, may I suggest that we close this AfD and move one to more meaningful AfD discussions? Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 22:30, 24 January 2013 (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. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 09:38, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

International Turnkey systems[edit]

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

Under (G11) this page may qualify for deletion, as it seems very much like advertising. Sumana Harihareswara, Wikimedia Foundation Engineering Community Manager (talk) 22:47, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, I came across International Turnkey systems as I was testing Special:NewPagesFeed and that's why I'm logged in under my Wikimedia Foundation account, but I don't mean to imply that the WMF Officially Believes that this page ought to be deleted. Sorry for any such implications. Sumana Harihareswara, Wikimedia Foundation Engineering Community Manager (talk) 22:50, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Probable delete The refs generally aren't to independent and reliable sources: the Zawya article is a press release, and most refs are to Bobsguide, which may not be a reliable source - it seems to be a marketplace/sales network so its write-ups on companies in the network would not be independent. One ref was in Arabic which I don't read, and another's to a Gartner report which costs money but might be reliable, but based on what I could read I can't see evidence of notability. --Colapeninsula (talk) 02:31, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Not notable --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 08:40, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 17:44, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Middle East-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 17:44, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 17:44, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Sources have been reedited and more are added. Bobsguide as a source won't be considered anymore in future edits AhmadTahaM (talk) 10:27, 6 January 2013 (UTC) — AhmadTahaM (talk)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 00:05, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep- has refs here and here. I presume them to be notable because if I can find these in English, I could only imagine the Arabic sources. PortlandOregon97217 (talk) 01:45, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Cheers, Riley 00:36, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mediran (t • c) 10:51, 22 January 2013 (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. Any discussion about merging the article can be provided at its talk page, using proposed mergers. (non-admin closure) TBr and ley ^{(what's up)} 01:33, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

2012 Istanbul rally to commemorate the Khojaly massacre[edit]

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

WP:POVFORK of Khojaly massacre, created to advance a particular viewpoint. The rally had a very limited impact and I don't think that rallies of such level deserve standalone articles. Brandmeister^talk 14:13, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2013 January 8. Snotbot t • c » 15:21, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The racist commentary during the rally is what made the rally significant anyways. I don't believe if it were for the racist slogans and chants that the rally would even matter to the Turkish press and the international community. Therefore, the article of the rally must stay and its racist chants and slogans shall stay as well so readers can see. Proudbolsahye (talk) 15:42, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The pretext of this AFD is apparently "The rally had a very limited impact". The article clearly states that "The European Union raised concerns regarding the racist slogans. A statement by the European Commission urged Turkey and its media to ..." An EU statement demonstrates this AFD context to be false - it did have an impact. My real concern is that it is yet another PoV magnet, witness the deterioration of a neutral article by the edits of 8 January, but that is not a reason to delete it. Chienlit (talk) 16:28, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Apart from WP:POVFORK, the article continues to have serious issues of WP:NPOVD and WP:DISPUTED about its content. Apart from this, the event was not historically significant, as to justify an article about it. Noraton (talk) 06:45, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Azerbaijan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:45, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:45, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:45, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:45, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 00:09, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and Merge any relevant material (if any) into Khojaly massacre. --DHeyward (talk) 03:15, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - not ideal article, but still covers major information about this rally. This rally was the largest event within Justice for Khojaly campaign and needs separate article due to the influence, scale, consequences, etc. Best, 188.142.246.17 (talk) 00:05, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

keep/merge scertainly not delete. Notable and we do not CENSOR. The article needs cleaning up and organising but hat is not reason to delete.Lihaas (talk) 06:54, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mediran (t • c) 10:50, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A well-sourced, notable event. Shortcomings of the article may be eliminated easily. We should all work on it. --E4024 (talk) 15:27, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. Seems to be notable enough under WP:EVENT, although it's of course too early to say anything about. It could of course be covered in another article, but I don't really agree with the WP:POVFORK claim of the original nominator, since it does cover a specific event. Tomas e (talk) 16:00, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) TBr and ley ^{(what's up)} 01:37, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Levan Razmadze[edit]

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

M-1 Megaton is currently a joke. Fails WP:GNG PortlandOregon97217 (talk) 14:08, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep In addition to being the DEEP Megaton Champion he is also a member of the Georgian Olympic Judo team. Entity of the Void (talk) 01:50, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

~~*Delete~~ Clearly fails WP:NMMA, however I don't know how mentioning the Judo affects it. We had another article that clearly failed MMA notability but couldn't get a consensus on it because of 1 sentence regarding participating in Sumo. In my opinion if somebody want to claim that another sport gives a person notability then they need to include some details in the article that supports that. To me it's like writing up an article on somebody like Matt Mittrone that talks about his NFL career, with 1 sentence saying he participates in MMA, and then claiming he passes notability for MMA. So, if you are going to claim notability for Judo, I suggest adding a couple paragraphs abot his Judo career. Willdawg111 (talk) 23:01, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral I am changing my opinion from Delete to neutral because there was more information added. As this clearly fails MMA notability, but it may in fact no pass Judo notability, I suggest this be kicked over to whatever project is evaulating Judo so that it can get a fair debate. Willdawg111 (talk) 03:01, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ - Fails WP:NMMA. --LlamaAl (talk) 23:15, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I added some content about his Judo career like Willdawg111 wanted. Should pass WP:WPMA/N as he has competed in significant international competitions and won numerous medals. Also may pass WP:NOLYMPICS, although he didn't technically "compete" but was an Olympic alternate. Luchuslu (talk) 02:17, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm not that familiar with the notabiltiy of Judo, honestly have never pulled it up. If you added Judo information, I would suggest linking this to the group that is doing the editing for Judo so they can properly evaluate the Judo notability. Don't leave it just in the hands of the MMA project because he won't pass our notability requirements. Willdawg111 (talk) 02:43, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You have some time here. Please, AfD is not for projects. Anyone can vote. --LlamaAl (talk) 00:22, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment That's true but if you are going to vote to delete it then you shouldn't being trying to delete it for failing just MMA, you need to explain how he fails MMA and Judo. He would only have to be notable for 1 or the other to be kept, but needs to fail both in order to delete it. Willdawg111 (talk) 08:06, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep Joke? You're the only joke here, cocksucker!!!!! Behemoth (talk) 21:14, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I am now on the fence about this guy. I see he won a European U-20 Judo championship. From his record it looked like his only major win. I am also not THAT impressed with him being an Olympic alternate. You don't have to neccessarily win any huge tournaments to be an olympic alternate or be on a national team. I also do not see any article from even MMAjunkie/USAToday that would establish his general notability either. I think Junkie is the most reputable one. PortlandOregon97217 (talk) 00:13, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There is a nice little article about him on Bloody Elbow. In combination with his judo career, he should at least meet WP:GNG Luchuslu (talk) 04:23, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have a low general opinion of bloody elbow. It's writing staff (and most mma writers accross the board) think they know better than the fighters, and in general have no first hand knowledge of the sport. It's like a person who has never played football announcing a game (Hello Mike Goldberg/Pride guy with glasses.) With that said I have attempted to pass it off as a legitimate source when it was convenient for me to do so. In this case Bloodyelbow has him mentioned as an olympic team member. However, the other sources have him mentioned as an alternate, and his record of only 1 tournament win would substantiate that. It was a european u-20 Judo tournament. I was wondering about that one in particular. PortlandOregon97217 (talk) 08:29, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Just to clarify, he was an olympic alternate behind Levan Zhorzholiani at half-heavyweight. But an alternate is still considered a team member. Also, he has two tournament wins: the U20 one and a Super World Cup event in Moscow. Multiple top-3 spots as well in semi-notable events. Luchuslu (talk) 16:56, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A guy I was acquanited with named Jonathan Osborne was an alternate, yet I don't think he would pass notability guidelines here on that merit alone. PortlandOregon97217 (talk) 21:54, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Georgia (country)-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:56, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:56, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:56, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Judo accomplishments combined with MMA career constitutes notability. (talk) 20:33, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please sign your posts by using four tildes. Papaursa (talk) 04:02, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ He has no fights for a top tier organization, so he fails WP:NMMA. He didn't compete at the Olympics, so he doesn't meet that criteria. Finally, junior martial arts events have repeatedly been deemed not notable--even medal winners at the Youth Olympics and junior world championships have been deleted previously (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Davit Ghazaryan and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Antonia Katheder for recent examples). Subject has not competed as an adult at the World championships so he hasn't competed at the highest level in judo, either. Papaursa (talk) 04:02, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep My previous comments are still correct, but Luchuslu makes a valid point. I still have doubts since he's never competed as an adult at even the European judo championships, but I'm willing to give him the benefit of the doubt. Papaursa (talk) 20:40, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment According to WP:WPMA/N, You need to meet one of five qualifications to be deemed notable. One of them is "Repeated medalist in another significant event;- (e.g. competitors from multiple nations or significant national tournament)." He won silver in the Georgian national tournament, plus a number of medals in other events with multiple nations involved. He obviously fails WP:NMMA, but on this basis should pass WP:WPMA/N Luchuslu (talk) 05:36, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 00:08, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mediran (t • c) 10:49, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No one has commented for 11 days. I don't see a need to keep relisting it, especially because there are zero votes for delete. Luchuslu (talk) 18:55, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, the nomination counts as a delete vote. But i agree with you. Poison Whiskey 14:13, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support close per Luchuslu's above rationale. No need to keep this still open. Cavarrone (talk) 19:37, 24 January 2013 (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 Lost Symbol#Film. There is a consensus to perform this action, and the article currently fails WP:NFF and WP:CRYSTAL, as filming has not yet began and the film is not almost certain to happen, so redirecting seems appropriate. (non-admin closure) TBr and ley ^{(what's up)} 01:42, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Lost Symbol (film)[edit]

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

This film has not started actual filming yet, ~~and has not had much news for a long time~~. I don't think other films at this stage of development usually have their own articles (for example, Star Wars Episode VII). Alphius (talk) 04:42, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to The_Lost_Symbol#Film. I did find these articles that mention that pre-production might begin this year, but nothing definite. Until filming actually starts, we should just redirect to the subsection in the Lost Symbol article for the film.Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:56, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- That's what I had done originally, but someone undid it and told me to put it up at Articles for Deletion if I disagreed with that. Alphius (talk) 13:59, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to The Lost Symbol#Film per the notability guidelines for future films. The person who reverted was Elonka (talk · contribs) who referred to this discussion which does not consider the aforementioned guidelines. In addition, the claim at that discussion that the film is in production is incorrect. The start of filming is the proper threshold for the creation of a stand-alone article. From what I can tell, they are still writing it, which is no assurance that a film will ever be made. EDIT: To elaborate on the reason for the guidelines, the assumption is that once filming starts, a final product will result. Before then is no guarantee, so it would be misleading to have a film article. Erik (talk | contribs) 14:27, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Similar recent precedents include Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Robopocalypse (2014 film) and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Expendables 3. Erik (talk | contribs) 14:43, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Erik (talk | contribs) 15:11, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Saying that there's been no recent news, is not a valid argument for deletion. There are reliable sources, and the movie is going to happen, even if there are schedule delays. As Tokyogirl79 pointed out, there are current sources,[33] and if the Los Angeles Times is covering the story,[34] that is a good argument that the film is notable enough for its own Wikipedia article. Even if we temporarily merge this film article back into the The Lost Symbol article now, we're just going to end up re-creating the film article in the future, so why go to that trouble now and make more work for ourselves? I have read the guideline at WP:NFF, but it's a guideline, meaning a recommendation, and not policy. We don't need to follow it absolutely. This Lost Symbol film article already exists, doesn't appear to be causing any damage to the project, the topic is notable, and has multiple reliable sources. I see no need to delete. --El on ka 17:23, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Elonka, WikiProject Film has dealt with many articles that were created based on the news that potential films were in development. Only a small portion of those in development actually become films because there are always factors that will get in the way of filming. That's why development hell is such a common term. The problem with having this article is that it purports that there will be a film when this is no certainty of one. We cannot assume there will be a film in the future, especially because non-activity is not often reported. For example, The Winter of Frankie Machine was a project in development, and the last bit of news was in 2007. There was no follow-up because there was no activity to report on. To be clear, this should never have been a discussion to delete; it is a matter of where to report the news coverage of a possible film. The guideline is informed by what actually happens with films in development, and this is a good example because it has been planned since 2009. Something like Shantaram (film) was in the works for six years but never started filming. News coverage is easily summarized in a "Film adaptation" section and can be part of a "Production" section if (not when) filming does start. Erik (talk | contribs) 21:15, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Erik, I appreciate that you are arguing in good faith, but I am not persuaded. I've run into these kinds of situations elsewhere around Wikipedia, where a WikiProject starts doing a sweep to delete perfectly good articles, out of a desire to "standardize". The main arguments I'm seeing here are, "Well, if we're not keeping articles about <movie1, movie2, movie3>, then we shouldn't keep this one either." I've probably also got my hackles up a bit because this article has been kicked around for awhile. There was an attempt to merge, which did not reach consensus. So then someone came along and tagged it for speedy deletion, and that got shot down. Then Alphius came along and just deleted the article without discussion, which was definitely outside of process. So I restored the article, and now we're at AfD. The amount of pressure to get rid of this article seems way out of proportion. If the AfD closes as "delete" or "redirect", so be it, but I remain in disagreement with this proposed course of action. --El on ka 21:38, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I do not understand the disregard for precedent. Years ago, there was a major problem with an article being created every time plans for a film were announced. The guidelines were established to help us place coverage accordingly. The problem is movie news continues to be very hyped; a headline about rights being bought for a film will make major rounds, but that does not mean it warrants a stand-alone article in this encyclopedia off the bat. The goal is to create an article for the ages. Without the start of filming, the status of the topic is inherently unstable. That's why there's this bouncing back and forth; it is easy to feel that this film will be happening soon, but that was probably the feeling back in 2009 too. That's why the guidelines exist, to reflect that overarching consensus that addresses the common knee-jerk reaction to such headlines. To merge and redirect is a proper approach because it establishes the right encyclopedic scope, that these are plans for a film and that it is too soon to start using the film infobox or putting it in film categories as if it is a done deal. Erik (talk | contribs) 22:02, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In addition, Alphius is not an admin, and he did not delete the article. There is a distinct difference between deleting from the public eye and redirecting a title to a section that already has coverage. It is about accurate presentation of a tangible topic. Erik (talk | contribs) 22:08, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I didn't realize there had been recent news, but I still think it doesn't need to exist yet. There are many precedents, including the recent ones mentioned by Erik, in which similar amounts of information (or more information) have been available about films, and they have still not gotten their own articles at this point in development. Alphius (talk) 18:33, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Please see WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. If the article didn't exist yet, it might make sense to not create it, per WP:NFF. But it does exist, and seems innocuous enough. I don't think it's worth a lot of time to debate whether it should or shouldn't be deleted. Let's just keep it and move on to the kazillion other things on Wikipedia needing our time? --Elonka 19:29, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - I'm just trying to keep to the many precedents I've seen before. There have been many articles for unreleased films that have existed and have had much more content than this (nearly all of which is in the section that it would be redirected too, anyway), and have still been deleted (such as Star Wars Episode VII, Robopocalypse, and The Expendables 3). Personally, I wouldn't think it would be too much of a problem to keep well-sourced articles for films that have not started filming yet, but I think that standards should be kept in this kind of situation. Based on the logic that it shouldn't be deleted or redirected because it already exists, those other articles should have been kept as well. With the little content this page currently has, I don't think it would really be too much trouble to bring it back later, and in the meantime, The Lost Symbol#Film can be expanded. Alphius (talk) 20:05, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to The_Lost_Symbol#Film until the project begins filming.Bencey (talk) 17:46, 23 January 2013 (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. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:42, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Circumcision in ancient Egypt (rabbinic literature)[edit]

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

Delete - Anything of merit should be added to Religious_male_circumcision#Ancient_Egypt. Otherwise there is nothing here worthy of its own article. Avi (talk) 02:13, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2013 January 22. Snotbot t • c » 04:09, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
keep -The anachronism presented merits the article standalone status. --Anuhek (talk) 20:40, 22 January 2013 (UTC)-[reply]
Delete as wholly unnecessary. AutomaticStrikeout (T • C) 18:57, 23 January 2013 (UTC)Bold text[reply]

Delete - Unnecessary to have a separate article on this when, for the sake of coherency and continuity, it could easily be incorporated in Religious_male_circumcision#Ancient_Egypt.--Zananiri (talk) 22:11, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - one source ("Gollaher 2000 p2" must be David L. Gollaher, Circumcision: A History of the World's Most Controversial Surgery New York: Basic Books, 2000. p2 starts chapter with mention of Egypt), minimal content - not 100% certain it belongs in Religious_male_circumcision#Ancient_Egypt or in Rashi or History of male circumcision (section Circumcision in the Ancient world) but as it stands not enough to suggest separately notable. In ictu oculi (talk) 06:25, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 02:15, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 02:15, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 02:15, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Egypt-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 02:15, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Juggalo. MBisanz ^talk 03:11, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Criminal activity attributed to Juggalos[edit]

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

Article was created in bad faith, makes unsubstantiated allegations about a music fanbase, ignores WP:NPOV. BigBabyChips (talk) 03:56, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This should have been merged. Unjustified as a separate article: inherently POV. DGG ( talk ) 05:04, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I see no policy or guideline based reason for deletion. The topic is clearly notable, with on-topic info from numerous reliable sources. Yes, some sources disagree with the classification. (The article title isn't the best.) This is a call for balance, not deletion. I see no indication the article was created in bad faith. (Nominating editor's conflict with creating editor does not make the article "bad faith".) NPOV calls for balance in an article based on adding content from reliable sources. It does not call for deleting well-sourced articles on notable topics or removing reliable sources (National Gang Intelligence Center and FBI are certainly reliable sources for this article). - SummerPhD (talk) 05:14, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Objection - There is obvious bias with the National Gang Intelligence Center and FBI, as they do not provide any evidence for justifying their classification of a music fanbase as a gang. In fact, this is the reason why Insane Clown Posse are suing the FBI, because the FBI refused to provide evidence to justify their categorization of "Juggalo" as a gang, and the FBI are supposed to provide information to the public on these issues per the Freedom of Information Act. Also, this issue involves living people who are negatively affected by the allegations, as these fans face violence from actual gangs due to this false classification. BigBabyChips (talk) 21:20, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure what you mean by "bias". Typical usage indicates prejudice of some kind. Denial of a FOIA request does not indicate prejudice. (If the FBI/NGIC used informants within the Juggalos to gather their info, much of that info would not be subject to disclosure under FOIA, for example.) If your claim of bias is based on that non-disclosure, it is erroneous. Both sources are reliable sources. What they have to say about Juggalos is verifiable. Whether or not you agree with them is another matter; one that is wholly irrelevant here. - SummerPhD (talk) 22:48, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No, the claims about Juggalos are NOT verifiable. There is NO EVIDENCE of the existence of ANY Juggalo gangs, or gang activity. Juggalo is not a gang, it is a music fanbase. Evidence that "Juggalo" is a music fanbase is widespread and easy to be found. The lawsuit against the FBI is entirely about the fact that the FBI has refused to provide evidence to justify their clearly false allegations about a rap group's fanbase. For you to completely ignore the issue at hand shows a CLEAR bias on your part, and for you to basically defend Niteshift36, who is a bigot, is extremely revealing of your clear bias. Describing Juggalos as a "gang" shows a clear prejudice. BigBabyChips (talk) 02:25, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am not suggesting we call them a gang. I am suggesting that we report that the FBI called them a gang. (If the FBI did not call them a gang, why is the band suing the FBI?) - SummerPhD (talk) 03:32, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Adding "Juggalo" as an ally of a REAL GANG is, in fact, calling "Juggalo" a gang. --BigBabyChips (talk) 19:06, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect and merge. This should be merged into the Juggalo article. There is a lot of redundancy and some other questionable tactics that are making this article look more relevant than it is. I made a quick pass to clean up some of it. Might do more later. Niteshift36 (talk) 21:48, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Niteshift36 has attacked Juggalos and other editors, as seen here where he refers to me as a "troll" for asking for verifiable information and neutral writing. Shows clear bias in editing. BigBabyChips (talk) 02:27, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, when you act like a troll, you get called a troll. Stating my opinion that ICP fans have horrible taste in music isn't really an attack, but if that makes you feel better, keep saying it. None of that, however, changes my !vote here or the rationale behind it. Niteshift36 (talk) 12:05, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am not, in fact, acting like a troll, I am calling you on your obvious bias against a MUSIC FANBASE by repeatedly calling them a gang in spite of evidence because of your anti-capitalist belief that Insane Clown Posse does not have the right to free enterprise, your anti-first amendment belief that ICP and Juggalos do not have the right to free speech and your general anti-freedom attitude that a MUSIC FANBASE that you don't like should be listed as a gang because you think that ICP is horrible. Now, secondly, since you do not know what kind of music I listen to, I think that you should chill on the "horrible taste in music" comment, since I'm willing to bet good money that I HAVE BETTER TASTE IN MUSIC THAN YOU, so STOP CALLING ME A TROLL because YOU ARE THE ONE that is, in fact, trolling, by repeatedly asserting that A MUSIC FANBASE which includes Charlie Sheen is somehow a "GANG". BigBabyChips (talk) 19:06, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

When you are told not to post on a user page and continue to do it, you're a troll. Further, I've never stated what music you listen to. Once again, you just make stuff up and act like it's true. So sad. Niteshift36 (talk) 19:49, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't "made up" anything. --BigBabyChips (talk) 23:10, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 02:09, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 02:09, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and merge I wrote the bulk of this article, and after talking with some local non-gang Juggalos and a law enforcement officer, I've had a change of heart. Now that I understand a little bit more about Juggalos, I agree that this is biased and should be deleted, and a completely separate article on the Juggalo criminal organization should be written. This one doesn't fairly differentiate between the Juggalo gang and the Juggalo fan group, not to mention things like the Robida and Syko Sam cases had nothing to do with gang activity. This lines up with the National Gang Intelligence Center report, which states that the Juggalo gang and the Juggalo fans are completely different animals. This article should be deleted and merged into the main article until a newer, unbiased article on the Juggalo gang subject is written. AnnerTown (talk) 02:31, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, apparent spinout, meets GNG on its own. --Nounique names 05:05, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom and the article's author, above. In order to remain neutral, we need to clearly differentiate between Juggalo and Juggalos (gang). This title, and the content provided, does not do that - Keeping this article would be making the same mistake that the FBI made. Since it has already been redirected, I think we're done here - am not sold on keeping the title as a redirect, but that's an issue for WP:RFD if and when. We can close this up I think. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 13:19, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment — I'm not convinced that it can be proven that there is such a thing as a "Juggalo gang". Anyone can claim to be a gang. A few suburban kids claiming to be gang members doesn't make them so, and a gang member who happens to be a Juggalo doesn't necessarily mean there is a "Juggalo gang". Also, I've pointed out that Juggalos are against racism, so anyone alligned with Aryan Brotherhood or whatever is not a Juggalo. BigBabyChips (talk) 22:15, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is about verifiability, not truth. If reliable sources say there is such a thing as a Juggalo gang, Wikipedia says there is such a thing as a Juggalo gang. If reliable sources say they are aligned with the Aryan Brotherhood, that's what Wikipedia should say. - SummerPhD (talk) 03:20, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BLP and WP:NPOV disagree with you, "pal". BigBabyChips (talk) 21:01, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No, they do not. Wikipedia:Blp#Reliable_sources is very clear that contentious material about living persons must cite reliable sources. The sources saying the FBI calls them a gang include the FBI. There is absolutely no disputing that the FBI calls them a gang. The sources saying various states call them a gang include the FBI. If you have any remaining doubt that the FBI and several states have called them a gang, there is no point in discussing this. (Additionally, BLP does not apply to statements about unidentified subsets of a larger group.)

WP:NPOV specifically "means representing fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources." Numerous major press outlets have reported that the FBI and several states call them a gang. NOT including that would violate NPOV. That you disagree with that significant view does not negate that view. - SummerPhD (talk) 00:46, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Summer, your explaination is spot on. Niteshift36 (talk) 19:28, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Frankly this whole thing smells of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. The nominator is also warned to refrain from personal attacks. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:45, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. An entirely unnecessary fork of an article itself of questionable merit. The Juggalos (gang) article relies almost entirely on quetionable primary sources, and I've already had to delete two gross WP:BLP violations from it. The last thing we need is this sort of nonsense spread over multiple articles. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:03, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete due to the improved article at Juggalo (gang). STATic message me! 22:03, 29 January 2013 (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 RESULT: Keep (non-admin closure). Notability proved, thanks for your contributions and additions to the article Boleyn (talk) 09:40, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Rod L. Evans[edit]

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

Tagged for notability for 5 years; couldn't confirm notability Boleyn (talk) 18:54, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 11:40, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 11:40, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 11:40, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 11:40, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep #2 deletion spree. Unscintillating (talk) 04:39, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment Nominating a large number of articles - all of which have been tagged for notability for at least 5 years - does not meet speedy keep no. 2. Boleyn (talk) 09:04, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 03:53, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep appears to be notable as an author. Tho not a formal standard, some of his books are in over 600 libraries, a/c WorldCat.[35] This needs further work to find reviews & other secondary sources, not an AfD--The nom says they have failed to confirm notability -- but where have they looked? An article being tagged for notability no matter how long, is not evidence of lack of notability, just evidence that nobody has looked at it. DGG ( talk ) 04:39, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – WP:N notable as an author. I've added three sources, which is just a small sampling of dozens of articles/reviews about his works. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 07:14, 22 January 2013 (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. Courcelles 01:01, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ioannis Diakidis[edit]

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

unref article tagged for notability for 5 years; couldn't confirm notability Boleyn (talk) 17:25, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 10:26, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Greece-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 10:26, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep #2 deletion spree. Unscintillating (talk) 04:05, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment Nominating a large number of articles - all of which have been tagged for notability for at least 5 years - does not meet speedy keep no. 2. Please comment on notability of article. Boleyn (talk) 09:07, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As far as the operational definition of what constitutes a "large number" of such nominations, the nomination being considered here is constructed with two arguments from WP:ATA, a proof by assertion, and no evidence of following WP:BEFORE. I would say that between two to ten such nominations is "unquestionably disruption". One such nomination by itself might also be argued as unquestionable disruption, but there is no pattern to consider. Unscintillating (talk) 15:54, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In requesting that I research this topic, you are asking me to do work that you could have done yourself, even after editors on your talk page have explained to you that your AfD nominations have been indiscriminate. The nominations that I have seen (I have only looked at about 10–20% of them so far) are composed of arguments from WP:ATA from the "Surmountable problems" section. The evidence I presented shows 250 consecutive delete !votes, almost all of which are deletion nominations. 250 AfDs is the maximum analysis allowed by the tool, and I have never before had a problem with the limit on the maximum number. In this case, 250 AfDs only returns two days worth of nominations. Behind those 250 is another 100 or so with the identical pattern. The number of related nominations is so large that the exact number is inconvenient to calculate. Unscintillating (talk) 15:54, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Every editor who posts at AfD is provided text that says, "discussion guidelines are available." This link leads to WP:Articles for deletion#How to contribute, which states, "...a pattern of groundless opinion, proof by assertion, and ignoring content guidelines may become disruptive." Further down it says, "You do not have to make a recommendation on every nomination; consider not participating if...[a] nomination involves a topic with which you are unfamiliar." Further down the page there is a section, WP:Articles for deletion#Before nominating: checks and alternatives. This section states, "Prior to nominating articles(s) for deletion, please be sure to:..." with sections A, B, C, and D. Relevant to the current AfD, point B6 states, "Check if there are interlanguage links, also in the sidebar, which may lead to more developed and better sourced articles." Doing this check leads to this article, which without regard for its merit is relevant to this discussion. Unscintillating (talk) 15:54, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 03:51, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The nom apparently did not realize that this has an article in the Greek WP, which has 2 good refs that just need to be transcribed over. AB, this is not careful work. Your assertion of unref is just plain wrong. DGG ( talk ) 04:57, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination withdrawn thanks for your hard work on this, Boleyn (talk) 09:42, 26 January 2013 (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. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:26, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Whitwell[edit]

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

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

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

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

The topic of this article may not meet Wikipedia's notability guideline for biographies. JamesUX (talk) 03:14, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Why not? --Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:27, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Neither the sources presented in the article, nor what I was able to find online, represent adequate independent coverage to write an article about this person. He appears to fail the criteria at WP:BASIC:A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has been the subject of multiple published secondary sources which are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject. Notability is not inherited, so the subject's association with notable people (which is mentioned several times in the article) does not convey notability on this person. VQuakr (talk) 04:08, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per VQuakr. GregJackP Boomer! 02:00, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The secondary sources, such as Elephant Journal, Yoga Journal are reputable sources. Please read both articles thoroughly. In the first edition of TKV Desikachar's Heart of Yoga, Whitwell writes a 5 page introduction to the book as well as the introduction for the Patajali Sutra in all publications of this book. Please communicate what is not notable? — Kelsea Barrett (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
I am a Vedic and yoga scholar and have independently tracked the lineage of Krishnamacharya before and after his lifetime. The translations of Whitwell books in English, Japanese, German, Croation, etc. serve as an important platform for the distribution of Krishnamachary'as knowledge throughout the world. I reviewed the references, and they are accurate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yogiraj Saraswati (talk • contribs) 03:16, 24 January 2013 (UTC) — Yogiraj Saraswat (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 16:33, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 16:33, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 16:33, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Nothing about him meets WP:BIO. Note that some of the refs are from books written by the subject himself. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 22:52, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

delete The sources here are to close to the subject. I'm not seeing adequate independent claim of notability. Andy Dingley (talk) 00:16, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per Alan Liefting and Andy Dingley - SimonLyall (talk) 08:14, 25 January 2013 (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. Merging cna be dicussed on the talk page, but there's clearly not a consensus towards deletion, so this can be shut down Courcelles 01:02, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Forrest Gump – Original Motion Picture Score[edit]

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

unref article, tagged for notability for 5 years Boleyn (talk) 19:40, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge.. I'm currently neutral about whether this album (which is the album of the Oscar-nominated Alan Silvestri score, rather than the song soundtrack) needs to have its own article. If not, the appropriate remedy would not be deletion, but rather merger back to Forrest Gump#Soundtrack. Wikipedia's coverage of this famous film should certainly include information about the music.--Arxiloxos (talk) 23:12, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 12:08, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 12:08, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 02:52, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and discuss merge, per Arxiloxos . The possibility of a merge here is so obvious that this should not have been nominated. DGG ( talk ) 04:51, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep/Merge per above. We're getting far too many articles at AfD that should be going through merge discussions, and this is an obvious one. --Michig (talk) 07:00, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge I'm not seeing sources for independent notability, although there are likely to be reviews in print magazines. The only online review I can find is very short.[36] I agree that a merge proposal would have been more appropriate. --Colapeninsula (talk) 10:08, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Question: A merge makes sense, but on the other hand, might this meet Wikipedia:Notability (music) or its predecessor (and now historical) Wikipedia:Notability (albums)? I find it intriguing toward possibilities that Allmusic wrote it being "a miscellaneous collection.... didn't keep it from shooting into the Top Ten as the movie became a blockbuster" might indicate that as an album, even if popular due to the film itself, it might be determinable as notable as a list article?[37] Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 23:08, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. WP:SK1. Nominator does not advance a reason for deletion - proposes merger. Merging should be discussed on the article talk page. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:58, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Supercritical hydrolysis[edit]

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

Suggest merge with supercritical fluid Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 02:54, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Might be best to suggest that on the article's talk page first, if you can explain why in more detail. If no one objects, you could always go ahead and merge it. InShaneee (talk) 03:37, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I did it on the Users talk page that created it, took the direct approach. I used Curation Tools and it automatically creates the review page.--Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 03:42, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 02:03, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your thoughts. I like the suggestion of including a description of the process in supercritical fluid. Argument for supercritical hydrolysis (SCH) as its own page: as acid hydrolysis and enzymatic hydrolysis are their own pages and are processes, SCH refers to the process by which sugar is created, not just the supercritical water. Dsokubo (talk)

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 RESULT: Keep (non-admin closure). Comments noted. Thanks for the contributions and additions to the article. Boleyn (talk) 09:44, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Przemysław Frasunek[edit]

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

tagged for notability for 5 years; couldn't confirm notability Boleyn (talk) 19:43, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 12:12, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 12:12, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 12:12, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Seven references have been added to the article since the notability tag was added. The Polish Wikipedia article provides this interview with a one-paragraph bio. Yasni has this page, which leads to sources like this which add, even if minimally, to notability. Google books shows three books with material, [38], [39], and [40]. Passes WP:N. Unscintillating (talk) 02:17, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 02:52, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It is really careless to nominate an article that has an equiv on the WP of the subjects national language, without checking there to see if there is additional information and references. This sort of work casts doubt on the degree of responsibility used of this entire series of nominations. We don't let bots do =nominations, and that should apply to actual editors whose work shows to more actual attention that a bot would have paid (and, in fact, no bot that would fail to screen for things like this, it would ever pass Bot Approval Group) DGG ( talk ) 05:02, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. The nominator has withdrew their nomination. (non-admin closure) TBr and ley ^{(what's up)} 19:26, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Great Lakes Inline[edit]

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

unref article, tagged for notability for 5 years Boleyn (talk) 20:11, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 12:54, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 12:54, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 02:48, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep – I was able to find coverage in Hockey Weekly; perhaps some other editors who are more familiar with this sport might also have some knowledge of where to look for sources. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 03:48, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
weak Keep (weak keep as I am unsure if the refs are substantial & what the standards ought to be in this sport) The nominator had apparently not checked, or perhaps not checked carefully enough, but there are references. Large scale nominations of disparate articles always suggest the nom is not working carefully. (See below, where a obvious copyvio was missed in the checking) DGG ( talk ) 04:49, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination withdrawn thanks for your hard work, Boleyn (talk) 09:58, 26 January 2013 (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. Speedy delete as copyvio of http://www.lheflin.com/#/creative-team/. Can I suggest that a check for critical problems like this might have been appropriate as befrore bringing this here? The problem of a mass nom is that nobody looks carefully at the individual articles. DGG ( talk ) 04:46, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Lance Heflin[edit]

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

Tagged for notability for 5 years; couldn't establish notability Boleyn (talk)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 14:09, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 14:09, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Missouri-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 14:09, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 02:47, 22 January 2013 (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. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:55, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Antisocial Manifesto: A Bipolar Perspective on Dissent from Society[edit]

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

Self Published website or book. No reference to demonstrate notability. Ariconte (talk) 02:46, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I was unable to find anything to show that this newly released book is notable. The sources in the article are either primary sources or refer to things that the book discusses but does not actually refer to the book itself.Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:47, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Essay hung on a title for a non-notable book. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 12:53, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete pretty much per nom JayJay^{What did I do?} 03:33, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Doesn't meet WP:NBOOK, not notable. Looks like an attempt at self-promotion to me. Yunshui 雲‍水 10:20, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 01:55, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 01:55, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I thought advertising wasn't allowed on WP. That's all this is. The user is using social media to promote his publication as well. Indeed, that's the only place where you'll find the title other than this article and, of course, the user's website. Furthermore, a number of the social networking advertisements that he created seem to have been deleted already. What's holding us back?! Kelisi (talk) 01:39, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'll further add that the user's username, "Bill Melahus", matches the book's "anonymous" writer's name exactly. You can't be a much more blatant self-promoter than that. Kelisi (talk) 01:46, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete (speedy) Every second this article exists discredits Wikipedia.--I am One of Many (talk) 08:20, 27 January 2013 (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, but I am going to use my discretion as a regular editor to call this a merge. There is no support for the outright deletion, but having looked at the article, there are parts of it that I don't feel can be allowed to stay. For instance, the "Aims" section looks is written in first person, and looks like content appropriate for a school website rather than a neutral encyclopedia. Removing that material leaves only a few lines of content that seems to fit well with the Kilkeel article. Sjakkalle (Check!) 06:01, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Gaelscoil na mBeann[edit]

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

Non notable primary school. We generally draw the line at high schools in terms of notability. See also WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 23:15, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 14:42, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Northern Ireland-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 14:42, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/redirect selectively to Kilkeel#Education. Sufficiently unusual to be worth a sentence or two. TerriersFan (talk) 02:42, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Leave as is! The school is 'notable', in the sense that the foundation of a bilingual school is a notable or historic event in this the area . Eog1916 (talk) 14:26, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Redirect - no notability established. No relevant refs and no in-line refs Many schools might claim to be the first of their type. First academy in this area. First school to teach curling , first whatever. Sorry but that doesn't add up to notability by Wikipedia guidelines. Redirect as per TF above if it will fit. Velella ^{Velella Talk} 23:43, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 02:43, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep -- An English-Irish school in Northern Ireland is probably unusual, which might justify its being kept. This would be exceptional, as we normally delete articles on Primary Schools - or merge them into an artilce on schools in the district. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:05, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep that the school is doing something interesting regarding bilingualism suggests that it's out of the ordinary. ˜danjel [ talk | contribs ] 16:20, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Kilkeel#Education per WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES. While WP:ITSINTERESTING, there doesn't appear to be sufficent WP:RS to establish WP:N for a standalone article. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:54, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I think - for now at least. Coverage on Radio Ulster (see here for example) suggests some notability, and there appears to be a political aspect to this school which might just keep running. There seem to be printed press articles of a regional sort of level as well as far as I can tell as well as passing references (I know...) in more national orientated press. I would be open to reviewing this in the future though - it's certainly not an obvious keep. Blue Square Thing (talk) 23:33, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Gaelic medium primary schools in Northern Ireland WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES makes it pretty clear and the school has nothing that suggests its notable on its own merits. While rare or interesting that it's a bilingual school, only through WP:SIGCOV would these seemingly POV keep arguments be substantiated in which it does not appear so. Mkdw ^talk 00:11, 1 February 2013 (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. WP:SNOW (non-admin closure) TBr and ley ^{(what's up)} 01:45, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Where Are Your Keys?"[edit]

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

I see no evidence that this is a notable subject, not yet anyway. The references in the article are not from reliable sources, and many of them are really just mentions. The most reliable thing I could find is this, which isn't much. Drmies (talk) 02:42, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Regretful weak delete. I find this subject fascinating, but I have to agree that it hasn't quite seen the level of coverage in sources that Wikipedia considers reliable that would enable it to pass the general notability guideline. If there was one good solid source there, I could be persuaded, but until then I think the article probably needs to go. This one might be a candidate to move to Teflpedia, which doesn't worry about notability and which is also licensed CC-BY-SA 3.0. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 13:23, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree re:interesting subject. One wonders though, and it's hard to gauge, to which extent it's a gimmick. Can you eat glass? Drmies (talk) 21:02, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - Haha, that's a good one! Their Japanese version of "can you eat glass" sounds pretty strange though, sort of like a robot... I can imagine that people would think you were insane if you said that, but I'm not sure they would think you were a native speaker. :) — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 21:49, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Changing to weak keep. Cnilep has me convinced about North Shore News and Straight.com (but not about the National Centre for First Nations Governance). — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 21:49, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 01:48, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 01:48, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 01:48, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. At least three of the sources cited appear to be reliable, though not above reproach. North Shore News is a newspaper, and it even publishes corrections, one of the tests of reliability suggested at WP:NEWSORG. Straight.com is part of a group of newspapers. That group is self-described as an "alternative to conservative daily newspapers" and straight.com does not appear to publish corrections, but its oldest paper (Georgia Straight) has been published since 1967 and members of the group have apparently won awards including a Best Documentary award for Canadian television programing (all of this per the organization's own claims). The National Centre for First Nations Governance is an NGO largely funded by the Canadian federal government. It is not independent of Kutenai or Mohawk nations, but is independent of 'Where are your keys?'. This is perhaps borderline, but I think the sources are sufficient to establish notability. Cnilep (talk) 03:15, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. This is not only well referenced and notable, but actually important. But whenever someone has set themselves up with the lofty attitude that "no sources whatsoever on topic xyz can ever be considered reliable", that's an impossible standard to satisfy. Ignore them and try to work with the editors who are more down to earth. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 19:55, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The problem is that most of the references are to blogs, so it's not accurate to call the article "well-referenced". — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 21:49, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. Obviously editors have taken great pains to cite this article and establish its notability, which they have done successfully. -Uyvsdi (talk) 20:59, 24 January 2013 (UTC)Uyvsdi[reply]
Strong Keep: This is an important topic in the preservation of Native languages, for which is IS difficult to find the kind of sources wiki prefers and often source material in this area is more informal than is ideal. However, notability is established, the sources are adequate, and the "these people don't exist anymore and are invisible except for my great-grandmother" problem on Native American articles about modern people generally is something that needs to go away. Montanabw^(talk) 23:13, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I think this is a borderline case in which we loose nothing by defaulting to keep. It seems likely that the topic is very notable within the somewhat limited circle of peoples who work with revitalization of North American Indigenous languages - but this is the notability it should be judged on and that is satisfied by the sources presented.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 23:30, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. The following refs are from WP:RS:

BoingBoing, which has been used in numerous tech articles as a ref.

Char-Koosta News is a tribal newspaper, and comparable to any local newspaper of a town or small city, with an editorial staff and a subscription base.

AILDI is a program of the University of Arizona, and reliable.

North Shore News is a tribal newspaper, and comparable to any local newspaper of a town or small city, with an editorial staff.

Spoken First is a publication of the Falmouth Institute, which provides education to Native American governments. It also publishes the American Indian Report, and both are reliable sources.

ChickasawTV is a video news outlet of the Chickasaw Nation, and is as reliable as any local government run cable channel.

Straight.com is the online home of Georgia Straight, published by the Vancouver Free Press, with a weekly readership of about 800K, and is a reliable source.

These references alone meet WP:GNG. GregJackP Boomer! 23:51, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Tiggerjay (talk) 23:11, 28 January 2013 (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 WP:WITHDRAWN . (non-admin closure) ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 01:39, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

R. Keith McCormick (modern pentathlete)[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/R. Keith McCormick (modern pentathlete)

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

Sports Reference.com doesn't have this individual listed for the 1976 Olympics event that he apparently competed in. The US already had three modern pentathletes competing in 1976, which was the quota for each country in the team event. Further Google searches for the title of the book used as a reference bring back just 6 results, three of which go to either the Wiki article or mirrors of it. This and another article was created within minutes by the same user, who has not edited since. I'd like to assume good faith, but this looks hoax-like to me (at least in regards to the Olympic element). Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 18:28, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: See Dr. R. Keith McCormick's website where he makes the claim himself (the website also identifies him as the author of the book). הסרפד (Hasirpad) [formerly Ratz...bo] 19:18, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I've tagged the second article for ((db-a10)) (speedy deletion as a duplicate). הסרפד (Hasirpad) [formerly Ratz...bo] 19:22, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
More notes:
- Here is an interview with him, on a dubious-looking site (apparently a vehicle for self-initiated interviews), making the same claims.
- In his own book, he also makes the claim.
In short, if there is hoax, it is not a Wikipedian hoax, but either a hoax on part of the subject or a much more complicated internet hoax, down to a site with our Doctor of Chiropractic's name. הסרפד (Hasirpad) [formerly Ratz...bo] 19:30, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Very interesting timeline:
1. "Keith McCormick" was added as the fourth member of the US 3-athlete team for modern pentathlon by RKMcCormick (talk · contribs) in the end of August (diff)
2. About 10 days later, Knightatwork (talk · contribs) first created a Wikilink for "Keith McCormick", then
3. created an article for the same, then
4. changed "Keith McCormick" to "R. Keith McCormick (modern pentathlete)" - thus losing the wikilink, and then
5. created this page.
הסרפד (Hasirpad) [formerly Ratz...bo] 19:49, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note that this claim was made online before its first mention on Wikipedia. הסרפד (Hasirpad) [formerly Ratz...bo] 19:53, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nice detective work! Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 20:08, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This piece from the NYT in 1976 (pay link, sorry) lists McCormick as an alternate on the US Olympic team. There are other old articles that refer to him competing in international competitions, such as this one describing the results of the 1975 junior world championships. I think this is a case of imprecise language, rather than a fabrication. As written, he did technically "represent" the US at the Olympics - alternates march in the opening ceremony with the rest of the team, for example. People in this AFD will need to decide for themselves whether or not he's above the threshold for notability. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 20:58, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I should add that the second-place finish in the team competition at the 1975 worlds or the US record, if either of those can be verified, would be enough to put him over the bar for me. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 21:02, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I leave the notability discussion for those familiar with the world of athletics; I am relieved, though, that it is not an outright hoax but rather a misrepresentation—or possibly the editor didn't understand the purpose of the page. I notice that in all the various sources McCormick is said to have "been part of the team that competed" (or something to that effect) but not that he competed. הסרפד (Hasirpad) [formerly Ratz...bo] 23:49, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 13:47, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 13:47, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Suggest deletion with no problem of this article being recreated if reliable sources exist. Currently this fails the BLP threshold. Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 13:46, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Theopolisme (talk) 23:57, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 00:03, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 02:40, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep – I've added the NYT source, and also two articles from Better Nutrition that discuss him and his book about osteoporosis. I think there's enough to squeak by our notability guidelines. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 04:17, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nice one - happy to withdraw this now. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 07:30, 22 January 2013 (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. No prejudice against speedy renomination. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 06:02, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Systematic Protein Investigative Research Environment[edit]

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

No evidence of notability. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 18:44, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 14:12, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – the primary citation describing this database (PMID 21609792) which was published December 2011 (after subtracting self-citations) has already been cited 7 times. Boghog (talk) 14:42, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Theopolisme (talk) 23:55, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 00:04, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 02:39, 22 January 2013 (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. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 06:00, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Association for Professionals in Infection Control and Epidemiology[edit]

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

May fail WP:GNG for organizations. I noticed the organization has been mentioned in some content on JSTOR, but the majority of it seems to be self published by the Association. Perhaps others can provide insight. SarahStierch (talk) 23:19, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 14:35, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 14:35, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 14:35, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps the nominator could find some insight by looking at the links to scholarly papers, books and news articles provided by the nomination process. Phil Bridger (talk) 22:14, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As I said, the majority appear to be written by the organization, which doesn't necessarily state notability, as far as I'm aware. SarahStierch (talk) 22:15, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No, you didn't say that, only referring to JSTOR, and if you had said it it would have been untrue. The majority of the first few dozen of the Google Books and News hits linked above are completely independent of this organization, and if you scroll down the Google Scholar results you can also find many hundreds that are not from APIC's journal, the American Journal of Infection Control. Shouldn't we be able to expect an administrator and apparatchik to tell the truth and to demonstrate at least a little competence? Phil Bridger (talk) 23:05, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Theopolisme (talk) 23:55, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 00:04, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 02:37, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This looks like a major institution that puts out well-regarded national-level guidelines on infection control. Sources I found:

Academic article in Infection Control and Hospital Epidemiology on guidelines for infection control put out by APIC and Society for Healthcare Epidemiology of America
Article on guidelines on endoscope reprocessing by APIC and others
Article on Antimicrobial Stewardship One sentence of the abstract says "The Association for Professionals in Infection Control and Epidemiology (APIC) and the Society for Healthcare Epidemiology (SHEA) are the professional organizations with historical focus, expertise, and credibility in articulating and implementing best practices in antimicrobial stewardship and infection prevention and control."
Soule, Barbara M., and Rosemary Berg. The APIC curriculum for infection control practice. Kendall/Hunt Pub., 1988.
Bioterrorism readiness plan by APIC and the CDC
Legislative Mandates for Use of Active Surveillance Cultures to Screen for Methicillin‐Resistant Staphylococcus aureus and Vancomycin‐Resistant Enterococci: Position Statement From the Joint SHEA and APIC Task Force
NY Times article on infection control guidelines put out by APIC and others
Charlotte Observer article on APIC
Medical News Today article on APIC MRSA Prevalence Study and subsequent polls

Sources 1, 2, and 7-9 are secondary sources; sources 1-6 are peer-reviewed. All except possibly the Charlotte Observer article are in depth; the Charlotte Observer is behind a paywall, but looks likely to be in depth. All of these are from reliable publishers. Because APIC puts out national guidelines for infection control, they are quoted or referenced in hundreds of articles and reports. So it seems that there are multiple reliable sources indicating notability, even if one excludes all the peer reviewed articles in American Journal of Infection Control. Given the notability of the topic, the article should be kept. Mark viking (talk) 04:40, 22 January 2013 (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. Courcelles 01:26, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Le Pionnier de l'atome[edit]

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

A non-notable story by a French author. The article consists solely of two sentences: "Le Pionnier de l'atome is a French science fiction novel written by Henri René Guieu, under the pseudonym Jimmy Guieu. It was written in 1951." All of this information is clearly given in the article on Henri René Guieu, so nothing extra is given. In a further 19 related articles, which I am also nominating, the identical wording is used with the substitution of the story title and year and psuedonym. There is no suggestion that this story (or the other 19) is notable, though the author undoubtedly is. It is worthy of note that in French Wikipedia the author is covered but none of his stories warrants a separate article. Emeraude (talk) 16:57, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages because for the same reasons:

Emeraude (talk) 17:05, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

delete all per nomination. Mangoe (talk) 18:07, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:38, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:38, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:38, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 00:07, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 02:34, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

delete all per nomination.Ariconte (talk) 06:43, 22 January 2013 (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 Red Thunder (musical group) . MBisanz ^talk 03:09, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Robby Romero[edit]

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

The article might have large portion of it copied from a website (see tags), it has a promotional tone, and the same article has been deleted before recently and has been recreated without much alteration.Kinkreet ^{~♥moshi moshi♥~} 15:30, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 14:12, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 14:12, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Promotional tone and copyright violations. TBr and ley ^{(what's up)} 17:44, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 00:08, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 02:32, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Possible keep or redirect to Red Thunder (musical group) - I found a minor mention here as a courtesy acknowledgement for one of his songs. One of the many articles I have found this which mentions he was a friend of Dennis Hooper and performed with musicians such as Paul Butterfield, Bob Dylan, Rick Danko and and also mentions his background and early influences. This article also mentions that he was the president and co-founder of Native Children's Survival which a separate Google News search provided several results as did a search for Dennis Hopper here, though some of these results are the same. This Los Angeles Times article from 1994 also talks other artists who have performed with him. In that article as well as this (also talks about his background) he speaks about Hollywood impeding on Native American culture and also mentions his group's debut EP sold out 10,000 copies. It seems he is still active with a minor mention here. For the group, I found this which talks about the history and, if you scroll to the following page, there is a photo where he is performing with Bonnie Raitt. I also found this in which he donated electric guitars to students. I also found this which mentions his association with Red Thunder, Native Children's Survival and producing a film, America's Last Frontier. What makes me lean towards keep is this which suggests one of his other films, Hidden Medicine, was shown at the 1999 Sundance Film Festival and I found news coverage. Two different searches "Robby Romero Eagle Thunder" here and "Robby Romero Paul Butterfield" here found some of the same results as earlier searches. I also found this which honoured him for "his role in raising awareness for the school through his music which led to construction funds for Sacred Hoop School (Cangleska Wakan Owayawa) in Oglala, South Dakota". Although I would like to have found more relevant and significant coverage for the musicians he has performed with, I believe this may improve the article to a notable level. Yes, he has received a lot of this attention through his group but some of these articles are specifically for him such as the last one I provided. That same article also mentioned his song, "Heartbeat" received significant attention on radio and TV in Europe. One thing is certain though, he has not been ignored including by his native people. I know this article has been relisted twice but I would like to hear from other users if they agree. SwisterTwister talk 21:36, 26 January 2013 (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. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:52, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Scott Kurland[edit]

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

Highly promotional article with no notability. Neither the individual achievements nor the overall career are significant. . The article here seems to imply he invented the type of software, but the references do not support it. The references are either based on the individuals PR, or discuss the overall genre of products. DGG ( talk ) 02:32, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 00:00, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 00:00, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 00:00, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per G11. Article is exclusively promotional and would need to be fundamentally rewritten to become encyclopedic. --Hirolovesswords (talk) 01:54, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. The nominator has failed to provide an argument for deletion, and in this case, proposed mergers should be used as the nominator has proposed a merger. (non-admin closure) TBr and ley ^{(what's up)} 01:51, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

How the West was Won: A Pioneer Pageant[edit]

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

Suggest this article be merged with Whitman Massacre Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 02:31, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep per criterion 1 there, and because this isn't the place for merge requests. There's a reasonable argument for notability, so the real question is whether for editorial reasons a merge is better: that doesn't require an AfD. --Colapeninsula (talk) 10:12, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 23:34, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 23:34, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 23:34, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge My apologies for AfD, Curation Tools automatically creates this and does not give the option of suggesting a merge. I agree that the information is worth keeping, it just seems out of place as a separate article.--Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 19:52, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. WP:SOFTDELETE The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:51, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Vino Vixen[edit]

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

I can't find any evidence that the subject meets the criteria in WP:CREATIVE, or WP:BIO more generally. Three pages of results in the Google News archive for "vino vixen": some are irrelevant, some are passing mentions of her in her employer's paper, and the rest are articles by her. A search for "Mari Stull" fares no better. General search produces more of the same: her own web site, the Wikipedia entry itself, a blog by another "vino vixen", social media, etc. Alexrexpvt (talk) 13:40, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 13:58, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wine-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 13:58, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 00:10, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 02:30, 22 January 2013 (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. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:51, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Congrex[edit]

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

Bringing this to AfD after declining a CSD request as the reason given was not appropriate. I feel the article fails to show notability, and the two references are not reliable independent sources. Peridon (talk) 13:15, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The CSD request had the following reason: "because first and foremost; the information is not accurate (anymore). In combination with the 'notability' 'orphan' and 'trustworthy sources' issues we think it is better to have it removed all together as we will not be able to meet the criteria to counter the 'issues'. Regards, a representative from Congrex." This was posted by an IP apparently in the Netherlands. Peridon (talk) 13:20, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Aside from news releases about events, appointments and merges, I am not finding anything substantial on the firm itself. One possibility was this item in a prior version of the article, but it doesn't make substantive claims about the company's role in that award. Overall, fails WP:CORPDEPTH. AllyD (talk) 20:26, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 13:55, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Management-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 13:55, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 00:11, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 02:28, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to marimba. MBisanz ^talk 03:18, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Flapamba[edit]

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

Part of a spam cluster. Previous group deleted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Viscount Bells. This was previously nominated as part of a group at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stone marimba. That closed with a suggestion to relist individually
No real claim to notability. Lacks coverage in independent reliable sources. Mix of bad sources, original research, linkspamming and promotion. Refs used are not independent reliable sources and include multiple links to article creators business. This is not really an article about the instrument but a coatracks to talk about "Percussion legend Emil Richards". There is no good evidence of any wider use of either it or it's name. duffbeerforme (talk) 11:25, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The article isn't encyclopedic in tone but the topic is encyclopedic. It could be stubified or perhaps merged to Emil Richards for the moment, but deletion is not the best way forward, and will just lead to more recreation. The solution is to develop good coverage of the topic(s). Disagree that it's purely part of a spam cluster, but there are definitely possible COI issues that nobody seems to have addressed, remembering WP:AGF (diffs please if there have been attempts I've missed). Happy to work with the contributor(s) to resolve the issues. Andrewa (talk) 23:00, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 13:40, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 00:12, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 02:27, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Selective merge to marimba, of which this is a type. There's not enough references for this to be independently notable. I found on Google Books a couple of brief mentions of others using this instrument (Elmer Bernstein, Steely Dan - see article now), and apparently Harry Partch (who's a significant modern composer) worked with Richards and his flapamba, though Richards is the principal source[41]. No in-depth coverage. --Colapeninsula (talk) 10:27, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No independent sources so simply not notable outside its use by the percussionist the article is really about. Mcewan (talk) 10:39, 29 January 2013 (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 Bianzhong. MBisanz ^talk 03:09, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dharma Bells[edit]

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

Part of a spam cluster. Previous group deleted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Viscount Bells. This was previously nominated as part of a group at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stone marimba. That closed with a suggestion to relist individually.
No real claim to notability. Lacks coverage in independent reliable sources. Mix of bad sources, original research, linkspamming and promotion. Refs used are not independent reliable sources and include multiple links to article creators business. This is not really an article about the instrument but a coatrack to talk about "Percussion legend Emil Richards". Named by him as part of his personal collection but there is no good evidence of any wider use. duffbeerforme (talk) 11:17, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The article isn't encyclopedic in tone but the topic is encyclopedic. It could be stubified or perhaps merged to Emil Richards for the moment, but deletion is not the best way forward, and will just lead to more recreation. The solution is to develop good coverage of the topic(s). Disagree that it's purely part of a spam cluster, but there are definitely possible COI issues that nobody seems to have addressed, remembering WP:AGF (diffs please if there have been attempts I've missed). Happy to work with the contributor(s) to resolve the issues. Andrewa (talk) 23:01, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 13:35, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 00:12, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 02:25, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Although the term Dharma Bells is sometimes used to refer to Asian prayer bells or similar instruments, this arrangement, with them fixed to a rectangular frame, is unique to Richards, and the article has no information about the Asian instrument. I looked for sources and couldn't find very much at all. Delete unless a suitable merge target can be found, and in that case only do a selective merge. --Colapeninsula (talk) 10:31, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Bianzhong Per nomination: the term does not seem to be independently notable enough for an article. I also couldn't find much in the way of references. In books, the reference quoted in the article probably refers to the refers to the Bianzhong but is a very brief mention. Between Bianzhong and Singing bowl I think we have the encyclopedic topics covered. Mcewan (talk) 17:34, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. An attempt to change this into an independently sourced article has changed the focus from the Dharma Bells (cap B) that this was about, a specific arragement for Richards, to dharma bells (small b), a percussion instrument better known by another name. A article on the latter may be appropriate at a more common name but this is not it. duffbeerforme (talk) 11:49, 29 January 2013 (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. No prejudice against speedy renomination. (non-admin closure) Michaelzeng7 (talk) 03:08, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Pekka Ruuska[edit]

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

Not notable. Only able to see one of three (?) refs and that seems to establish that he exists and is a curator. Fails by a long way to establish notability in Wikipedia terms. Velella ^{Velella Talk} 10:17, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Tentative keep There's quite a few references on the Finnish Wikipedia (unusual - I usually find the other languages very scanty in referencing compared to this one...). Peridon (talk) 15:31, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 13:33, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Finland-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 13:33, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 13:33, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 00:14, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 02:24, 22 January 2013 (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. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:50, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Neace Lukens[edit]

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

Contested PROD. Non-notable subsidiary of a non-notable holding company of a barely notable private equity firm. The sources cited do not establish notability -- they mostly consist of press releases about firms they acquired, and there's no significant coverage shown. —Darkwind (talk) 19:52, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 20:03, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Kentucky-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 20:03, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Lacks reliable sources. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 21:22, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Sufficient reliable sources from around the country are cited in the article such that notability can be verified without further research. I also checked Bloomberg Businessweek, and found this. The concern that the parent holding company might not be notable is not a problem, as notability is not inherited. I examined one of the sources, and see that it was written by a reporter with a bio that includes a picture, a phone number, and a list of beats. A press release is used to source the main part of the story, but this story is not a press release, and it includes additional material. The story includes a picture made by a staff reporter that was acquired in the offices of the business. This source is significant coverage. Unscintillating (talk) 03:57, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SarahStierch (talk) 07:11, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 00:14, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 02:22, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. WP:SOFTDELETE The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:48, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Lahr Khan[edit]

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

Unfinished and unsourced article. Just a few hits on Google (but likely that there are more in other languages/scripts than I master). According to the author: (To be continued). But not here and in this state. The Banner talk 05:15, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:23, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:23, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 00:16, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 02:21, 22 January 2013 (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. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 22:12, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Veeshayne Patuwai[edit]

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

fails WP:ENT and WP:CREATIVE. dubious claims for notability. coverage is 2 small hits in NZ Herald [42], and gnews hits merely confirm her existence [43]. LibStar (talk) 01:34, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. 18:44, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. gadfium 18:44, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 00:18, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I think that she meets WP:ANYBIO. The awards she has won are both well recognised and respected in their fields in New Zealand. She is not internationally recognised however. NealeFamily (talk) 05:51, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

she was only nominated and did not win one award. LibStar (talk) 05:54, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

She won the 1995 Mobil Radio Awards - Best New Zealand Broadcaster. I think that is sufficient. NealeFamily (talk) 19:29, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 02:19, 22 January 2013 (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. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:06, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Blank map[edit]

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

Delete since it is not much more than a WP:DICDIR. A redirect to maps might be an alternative. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 02:33, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep If this is a sourceable term for the obviously common practice of outline-only maps, then I see no reason to delete it. Andy Dingley (talk) 02:52, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- outline maps are sometimes called base maps, too. Uncle G (talk) 20:29, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been notified to WikiProject Maps. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 07:30, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been notified to WikiProject Geography. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 07:30, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 02:16, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a pointless and overkill fork of map. I will also support a redirect to map. -- P 1 9 9 ✉ 20:50, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/subsume into map. It's doubtful that sufficient can be said of this subject to warrant its own article, so should be within the "Map types and projections" of the map article, with redirect. Possible that "outline map" is a more commonly used term than "blank map". PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 22:02, 23 January 2013 (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 K-1 events. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:46, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

K-1 World Grand Prix 2002 Preliminary Spain[edit]

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

fails WP:SPORTSEVENT. merely an events listing. and all participants non notable. also nominating:

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 08:02, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 08:02, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 08:02, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Bundled page relates to Nevada ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 08:02, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nevada-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 08:02, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of K-1 events There's nothing to show these events had long term significance (see WP:SPORTSEVENT). The Spanish event was a qualifier for the Las Vegas event which was a qualifier for another event which was a qualifier for the K-1 finals. I think redirecting is preferable to deleting. Mdtemp (talk) 17:59, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 02:13, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of K-1 events Both of these events are already listed in that article and I don't see that either event is notable on its own. Papaursa (talk) 18:33, 26 January 2013 (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 Iggy Azalea. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 09:06, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The New Classic[edit]

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

Article subject does not meet WP:NALBUMS, particularly "Unreleased material". The album has been "coming soon" for nearly 18 months, and the exceptions for unreleased material ("...sufficient verifiable and properly referenced information... However, this only applies to a very small number of exceptionally high-profile projects — generally, an album should not have an independent article until its title, track listing and release date have all been publicly confirmed by the artist or their record label.") are not met. Tgeairn (talk) 04:18, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 08:07, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 08:07, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redict to Iggy Azalea--Nikinikolananov (talk) 10:33, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 02:12, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. Album is an upcoming release. If anything, should be redirected to Iggy Azalea, for now. User:1Sire (talk) 17:58, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect - to Iggy Azalea. It's a little early for the page to have its own article, so might as well redirect until it gets released. Zappa O Mati 01:11, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. WP:SOFTDELETE The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:43, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

National Academy of Osteopathy[edit]

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

Non-notable for-profit educational institution. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 15:03, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 10:00, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 10:00, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 10:00, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 10:00, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not a college or university, just a trade school. (It teaches "Manual Osteopathy" such as massage; it is not a college of osteopathic medicine.) Most of its "education" appears to be online and brief (as short as 4 months). The loudly trumpeted "100% Success Guarantee" makes it sound even more like snake oil. --MelanieN (talk) 18:24, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 02:04, 22 January 2013 (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. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:42, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Pirate Cove[edit]

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

Possibly non-notable It's a Fox! (Talk to me?) 02:04, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Look at the references. References 2-9 are pages on the Pirate Cove website (which I can't get to work), and reference 1 is a forum thread. Not only that, but the forum thread is someone offering to pay for someone to create a Pirate Cove Wikipedia article! A respondent on the thread, mjester93, said they'd write the article, and the article was created the next day by Wikipedian User:Michael Jester. That's a failure of WP:RS, WP:GNG and WP:PAY right there. Howicus (talk) 02:25, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:GNG, and I can barely find any WP:RS. Based on the first source, the page was definitely created as advertising according to the forum. WP:NOPAY (or WP:PAY) may apply, though I wouldn't know if the forum says anything about paying. Zappa O Mati 02:32, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete reference 1 indicates COI and the rest aren't independent of the source. There's nothing immediately available from a cursory google search either. —Rutebega (talk) 15:39, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as advertising. Maybe speedy delete as WP:CSD G11. --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 21:52, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 23:02, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 23:02, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Considering it is a counterfeit goods website, it's very unlikely they would've received significant attention especially from news sources, but nevertheless, I searched and received nothing. There are other companies and places with this name "Pirate Cove" but adding words such as "marketplace" and "website" provided nothing else. Honestly, it is probably very unknown except for counterfeit buyers because it uses the anonymity network Tor, and it was allegedly founded in 2013. Entirely promotional and worthless article. SwisterTwister talk 19:46, 27 January 2013 (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 Emerald Hill, Zimbabwe. MBisanz ^talk 03:08, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Emerald Hill Children's Home, Zimbabwe[edit]

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

Unreferenced article, tagged for notability for 5 years. Possibly could be merged to Emerald Hill, Zimbabwe, but doesn't seem notable. Boleyn (talk) 17:40, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 10:41, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Zimbabwe-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 10:41, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 01:58, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Emerald Hill, Zimbabwe. Merge is unadvisable as might raise WP:UNDUE concerns. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:39, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Humans in The Saga of Seven Suns. MBisanz ^talk 03:08, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Estarra[edit]

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

Unref article, tagged for notability for 5 years Boleyn (talk) 18:44, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 11:14, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 11:14, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 11:17, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 01:54, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and consider a merge; there is such an obvious possibility for a merge that it is hard to view this as an appropriate nomination. DGG ( talk ) 05:06, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Humans in The Saga of Seven Suns; not notable out of universe but worthy of inclusion in the list. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:31, 29 January 2013 (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 RESULT: Keep (non-admin closure). Notability proven. Boleyn (talk) 09:47, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Kevin EuDaly[edit]

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

Unref blp; tagged for notability for 5 years Boleyn (talk) 18:48, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 11:32, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 11:32, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 11:32, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 11:32, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 01:54, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep notable author--edited standard reference work in the subject [44]. DGG ( talk ) 05:07, 22 January 2013 (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 Echoing Green (band)#Discography. MBisanz ^talk 03:07, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Evergreen Annex – Remix Addendum[edit]

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

unref article, tagged for notability for 5 years Boleyn (talk) 19:03, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 11:45, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Mexico-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 11:45, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 01:53, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to The Echoing Green (band)#Discography. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:23, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. WP:SOFTDELETE The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:23, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence Knowledge Exchange[edit]

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

Tagged for notability for 5 years; seems like a good organisation, but non-notable Boleyn (talk) 19:06, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 11:48, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 11:48, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 11:48, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - the article is about a non-profit organisation who hasn't received significant coverage in reliable sources, failing WP:ORG. Mentoz86 (talk) 12:01, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 01:44, 22 January 2013 (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. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:22, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Evrim Çalışkanları[edit]

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

Tagged for notability for 5 years; couldn't confirm notability Boleyn (talk) 19:11, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 15:58, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 15:58, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 15:58, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 15:58, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 15:58, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, fails WP:GNG & WP:PROF.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 19:14, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 01:43, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Minor translation project, never received any coverage from any source that I could find, and no sources are provided in the article - which appears to be Original Research. --MelanieN (talk) 16:01, 23 January 2013 (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 Peter Pan Effect. MBisanz ^talk 03:07, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Face of Dorian Gray[edit]

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

Unref article, tagged for notability for 5 years Boleyn (talk) 19:15, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 11:54, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 11:54, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 01:42, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to The Peter Pan Effect, as is often/usually done for NN songs with regards to their albums. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:22, 29 January 2013 (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 03:07, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Faqawi[edit]

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

unref blp; tagged for notability for 5 years Boleyn (talk) 19:31, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 11:58, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 11:58, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 01:40, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

obvious delete non-notable no references JayJay^{What did I do?} 03:36, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Article is not a BLP, U or otherwise. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:21, 29 January 2013 (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 EUBINGO. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:20, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Federbingo[edit]

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

Unref article, tagged for notability for 5 years Boleyn (talk) 19:38, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 12:05, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 12:05, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to EUBINGO that briefly mentions it as a member. Cavarrone (talk) 17:31, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 01:39, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. WP:SOFTDELETE The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:18, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Full attribution license[edit]

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

unref article; tagged for notability for 5 years Boleyn (talk) 19:46, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 12:18, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I can find no coverage about this license. Even the website for this apepars to be dead. -- Whpq (talk) 17:51, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 01:37, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to 2013 in the United Kingdom . MBisanz ^talk 03:07, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

January 2013 Great Britain and Ireland snowfall[edit]

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

This just seems like a normal winter snowfall. Per WP:NOTNEWS, I don't think we need a new article for every time that it snows in Britain. Jeremy (talk) 01:36, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 01:39, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 01:39, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 01:39, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 01:39, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Another winter another "is the weather notable enough for a Wikipedia article?" debate. I'm tempted to say keep for the usual arguments. Britain's climate is generally mild thanks to the Gulfstream, so heavy snowfall is rare. On top of that this is still an ongoing event, and for the Met Office to issue a red warning (the highest), as it did over the weekend, is unuaual. Having said that we need to think about how to deal with this if heavy snow becomes more regular. Three of the last four winters have seen significant snowfall. Whether that suggests a change in the climate is something I couldn't comment on, but if it was then obviously these events wouldn't be so notable. Paul MacDermott (talk) 12:35, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Very strong keep because of the rare red alert, avalanche and all the arguments above. This is certainly not a normal snowfall any more. GeorgeGriffiths (talk) 16:17, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As pointed out on the article talk page the avalanche was in an area unaffected by the snowfall described in the article. To link it with this snowfall is original research.—Jeremy (talk) 19:08, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note An Anon editor removed the AFD tag. I have reinstated it. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:50, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- For about 20 years the south of England had litlte snow. The climate has now perhaps reverted to normal, and have forgotten how to operate with lying snow. Snow in winter should not be regarded as unusual. We have just become cowards in the face of it. It is not a "storm". Neither road nor climing accidnets are unusual. EVen the red warning was merely that there would be more snow than normal. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:50, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"More snow than normal" being the point, I guess, and we've more on the way. Paul MacDermott (talk) 19:01, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - although it's had local media coverage, it fails to meet Wikipedia:Notability (events). This isn't 1962-1963, it's just annual snowfall (I can remember worse in the last two or three years). Although the media, particularly the BBC, have overhyped it, it's just routine coverage, and the event is unlikely to have lasting effects, or long term coverage. (I admit there's a bit of WP:CRYSTAL in that statement, so I was going to wait till the snow's melted before nominating it myself). An optimist on the run! 07:46, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep/merge We have yearbook articles like 2013 in the United Kingdom which would be a suitable place to record weather highlights like this. And we have plenty of other articles about inclement weather such as List of United States tornadoes in January 2013. Such issues are best dealt with by merger up to an appropriate level of summary. Deletion is not helpful in this and we don't need an AFD discussion every time someone starts such an article. No-one ever deletes the AFD discussions and there's no reason to delete the articles either. Warden (talk) 13:44, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/merge - Not especially encyclopedic (or well written - but that's another debate), and can be merged into local place articles where snow was locally eventful, as well as 2013 in the United Kingdom.... that is unless the weather pattern continues to something like '62/'63, in which case it can be easily reinstated anyway. --Jza84 | Talk 14:54, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I would agree with those who want to delete this if we were talking about a day or two of fairly light snowfall, but since this has lasted almost two weeks now we're approaching the point of significance. What is inescapable is that such large quantities of snow are unusual for the United Kingdom. Sky News reports forecasts of further snowfall and nine weather-related deaths. Ideally it would have been better if this article had appeared later when we have a clearer picture of events. I also think it may bave been more courteous had the nominee waited forthe ((underconstruction)) template to be removed, either by the bot responsible for such matters or the article's creator themselves. Paul MacDermott (talk) 16:50, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And after the snow come the floods, with 50 flood warnings in place. I may take a copy of this article and rework it into something like "Winter of 2012-2013 in Great Britain and ireland", though that depends on what happens through the rest of the winter, but it would potentially lead to a broader ranged and more encyclopedic article. Paul MacDermott (talk) 11:23, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

According to this the problem seems to be a little more widespread than the UK, with much of western Europe affected. Snow in Britain is rare these days. Snow in Spain even more so. I'll keep an eye on this topic and see how it goes. Paul MacDermott (talk) 11:42, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This article is also worth a read. The important passage here is: "This is now the fifth year in a row that we have had an unusual amount of snow; I mean snow of a kind that I don't remember from childhood: snow that comes one day, sticks around for a couple of days, followed by more." Paul MacDermott (talk) 12:05, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

So Paul, is your argument that "Snow in Britain is rare these days", or that "This is now the fifth year in a row that we have had an unusual amount of snow"? <g> Le Deluge (talk) 19:38, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've said somewhere else this is now the fifth winter in a row where we've had snow, so perhaps it isn't quite as rare as it was a few years back. The truth is these articles will continue to appear, and we'll have these debates, until we decide once and for all how to deal with this. I notice we're missing the two most recent Global storm activity articles for 2012 and 2013, so perhaps there is the place for this information. Paul MacDermott (talk) 22:54, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Notability (events) is a pretty good place to start. I'm not saying no weather is notable, but people have to think a bit on long-term perspective. The 1987 storm, the drought of 1976 - they are notable events that genuinely stick in the memory. They caused either widespread and "interesting" damage or policy shifts on eg water policy. Can anyone really imagine that in 30 years time "the snow of early 2013" will stick in the mind in the same way?Le Deluge (talk) 02:38, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If you're looking for a way to quantify "lasting, historical significance" you could think in terms of hard cash. The ABI say that on average flooding led to £450m/year of insurance payouts during the noughties. So I'd suggest that if a single event led to >£1bn of insurance payout, that's the kind of threshold to think of. I think the 2000 floods were something like that, not sure if any have been since then. Obviously the indirect economic costs can be much more but are much "fuzzier" - this pseudo-advertising report puts the average indirect costs of snow at £11bn/year, so I'd be looking for >£22bn of indirect costs for snowfall to be notable.Le Deluge (talk) 17:29, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
In line with the data provided by Le Deluge, a little perspective on the reported fatalities can be found in noting that the average excess winter (December to March) mortality in the United Kingdom is about 200 extra deaths per day.[45] There are also, on average, about 5 fatal road accidents per day in the UK.[46]—Jeremy (talk) 17:58, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete/merge - as I said on the Talk page :"I too was somewhat depressed if not altogether surprised to see that this article had been created. Might I gently suggest that people read Wikipedia:Notability (events), in particular

Wikinews offers a place where editors can document current news events, but not every incident that gains media coverage will have or should have a Wikipedia article. A rule of thumb for creating a Wikipedia article is whether the event is of lasting, historical significance....Editors should bear in mind recentism, the tendency for new and current matters to seem more important than they might seem in a few years time....Events that have a noted and sourced permanent effect of historical significance are likely to be notable. This includes, for example, natural disasters that result in widespread destruction, since they lead to rebuilding, population shifts, and possible impact on elections. For example, Hurricane Katrina or the 2004 Indian Ocean earthquake are notable by these standards. A minor earthquake or storm with little or no impact on human populations is probably not notable. It may take weeks or months to determine whether or not an event has a lasting effect. Think about this article in that context."

I would also note that User:GeorgeGriffiths, creator of the article, is still at school so perhaps lacks a historical perspective on these things. I would also note that this is not a national event but a regional one - the real angle is that it's snowed quite a bit in Bristol. Snow in the Brecon Beacons is not news, nor in the Peak District. I'm further east and we've had about 3 inches - totally unremarkable. In Scotland they must be laughing. The yearbook article seems the appropriate place for this stuff - and as Jza says, that's before we get onto the quality of the snow article as it stands, but that's as much to do with the tenuous notability as anything.Le Deluge (talk) 19:38, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Data - there's far too much anecdote on this page - Boris Johnson has been cited as some kind of authority for flip's sake, a man who grew up in the biggest heat island in the country. Here's the Met Office data - the long term average is for 16.5 days a year with snow on the ground in the UK, and 33 days per year when snow is falling. In particular take a look at those maps for the 1971-2000 average snow fall/persistence. I'd not seen them but they make my points rather well about snow in Bristol being the most notable (umm - least unnotable...) feature of the recent weather, and the complete bemusement of the Scots about any of this being interesting.Le Deluge (talk) 02:38, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete/merge - I agree it fails on notability. The yearbook is a more appropriate place. --HighKing (talk) 20:33, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Just to add, some of these "Britain and Ireland" styled articles are a nonsense anyway. Ireland has had a pitifully tiny amount of snow compared to Great Britain, so why try to lump together two different islands to plump up an article. The vast majority of these "Weather X in Britain and Ireland" articles are concerned with Britain, and Ireland usually just gets a passing mention. Same as this one. Not all articles obviously. If the shoe fits, fine, but if it doesn't, stop maiming your feet. --HighKing (talk) 13:31, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  Agreed - if the article survives this AfD it needs to be renamed. Incidentally, would those !voting for merge please indicate what it should be merged with. An optimist on the run! 22:31, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge, and even the snowfall in Bristol is not that remarkable. Speaking as someone who lives there.TheLongTone (talk) 11:39, 25 January 2013 (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. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:16, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Gibson Advanced Jumbo[edit]

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

Tagged for notability for 5 years; couldn't establish notability Boleyn (talk) 19:57, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 12:44, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 01:35, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I added some content and sources. The instrument is clearly notable. A quick check for sources would have been appropriate. AfD should be used only for topics that clearly do not belong in Wikipedia, not for articles that just need improvement. Aymatth2 (talk) 16:00, 28 January 2013 (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. Lack of participants, defaulting to "no consensus to delete"; NPASR. Salvidrim! ✉ 13:02, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Stu Galley[edit]

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

tagged for notability for 5 years; couldn't confirm notability Boleyn (talk) 19:54, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 12:39, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 12:39, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral: Galley is "borderline" notable as a game designer and it seems this could be argued either way. A few media sources have published interviews or descriptions of his career with Infocom, but his notability is basically restricted to the interactive fiction gaming community so the WP:Generally notable people guidelines may not be met with respect to the gaming community more generally. Anyways, here are three sources I came across:

He was interviewed as part of the GET LAMP documentary (which was released under a Creative Commons license, so I can note that the documentary's interview with Stu Galley is viewable on the Internet Archive).
An interview published in the Commodore 64 magazine Zzap
A description (~3 paragraphs) of Galley's career with Infocom was published in "The Imps of Infocom are still alive and kicking", Computer Game Review. April, 1996. Vol. 5, No. 9. Pages 83-88. --Mike Agricola (talk) 23:13, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 01:34, 22 January 2013 (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. WP:SNOW (non-admin closure) TBr and ley ^{(what's up)} 01:54, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Lubomyr Luciuk[edit]

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

Subject of BLP requests deletion due to inaccuracies and persistent posting of unsourced negative opinion (OTRS Ticket#2013011910003828) - see, e.g. edit of 16 January 2013; Also, questionable notability per Wikipedia:Notability (academics) Geoff ^{Who, me?} 01:22, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Unquestionably notable as WPPROF and WP AUTHOR> Full professor at RMC Canada, clearly an authority in his field, author of multiple books published by major university press, mentioned in the article. I can see some possibly controversial elements to his career, and some questions of what would be the correct wording, but these are to be resolved in the usual way, by editing. DGG ( talk ) 05:18, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

DELETE OR BLOCK POSTER: I do not have the time to continuously return to this WIKIPEDIA entry, that I posted originally as a public service, to repeatedly correct the nonsense that one rather silly fellow keeps inserting; a biographical entry on a serious site (i.e. Canada's Who's Who) does not allow for malcontents or those bearing malicious grudges to post their fantasies about what, by anyone's reckoning, was a minor incident (that this individual misrepresents). Nevertheless he keeps coming on line to spew nonsense, and has done so several times, over the past several years. I would be happy to leave my entry on WIKIPEDIA if it were not subject to the "editing" (sic) of this "videographer"; otherwise, since it is about me, I am alive, and have made it clear that I do not wish to spend time returning to remove silly "edits" I offer a simple choice - either block the poster from "editing" the entry about me or take my entry off line. Thanks,

Professor L Luciuk (22 January 2013) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.193.142.54 (talk) 15:54, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - notable scholar in his field, political activist in his country's affairs. Neither his own COI and autobiographical edits "as a public service", nor any problems with BLP violations, should cause us to delete this article. Improvement, not deletion, is clearly the path to take here. --Orange Mike | Talk 17:37, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 22:50, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 22:50, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 22:50, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 22:50, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Subject only manages a GS h-index of 6 (please correct if wrong) so WP:Prof#C1 is doubtful. May pass WP:GNG on eastern European nationalist activism. The BLP in its present state does not appear to contain any offensive material. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:12, 22 January 2013 (UTC).[reply]
Keep. Notability is marginal, but I think this squeaks by. Most of his books have very low holdings, but 2 of them have >200: Creating a Landscape and Searching for Place. WoS h-index is 2, but this statistic is not terribly applicable here. Article has no actual WP:RS and it is full of WP:OR. These issues must be addressed if this article is kept. Agricola44 (talk) 17:26, 24 January 2013 (UTC).[reply]
Hi all you pseudonyms, please use your real names when posting comments here so that your credibility, and relevance, becomes apparent. Cheerio. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.193.142.54 (talk) 12:51, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- It is against Wikipedia policy to reveal personal information of its editors (such as real names of editors working pseudonymously); see WP:OUTING. As for credibility: cases here are decided based on the strength of the arguments and their connection to established guidelines, not on ad hominem credentialism. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:16, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - Concur with David, but will also suggest to anon to use an account next time so that we don't see that his/her IP is in the same city as Luciuk's place of employment :) Agricola44 (talk) 23:13, 28 January 2013 (UTC).[reply]
Keep. Unquestionably notable per WP:GNG regardless of whether he also passes WP:PROF; e.g. highbeam returns 150 hits for his name and although many are in the same publication (Ukrainian Weekly) others aren't. The article does need major cleanup and I was particularly dismayed to see the immediate reversion of this edit attempting to bring the article into line with our BLP policies on sourcing; however, AfD should not be for cleanup. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:25, 28 January 2013 (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) 21:45, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Danilo Golubović[edit]

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

Tagged for notability for 5 years; couldn't confirm notability Boleyn (talk) 20:00, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The article was created because he was supposed to become the minister. He didn't so I guess it fails notability although it is used in this list Minister of Agriculture (Serbia) as he was an acting minister so perhaps it should stay.--Avala (talk) 22:17, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 12:46, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Serbia-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 12:46, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 01:21, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Hmm, i dont know, but we maybe can expand this, as per acting minister. I somehow lean toward Keep... --WhiteWriter^speaks 21:01, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - Acting minister, perhaps, but he did hold the office...seems to straddle the line, defaulting to keep. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:09, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:08, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Greek Orthodox Youth of America[edit]

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

unref article, tagged for notability for 5 years Boleyn (talk) 20:14, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 12:58, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 12:58, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 12:58, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Greece-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 12:58, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America, whose youth program it apparently is. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:37, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 01:19, 22 January 2013 (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. Nomination withdrawn; no non-keep !votes following relisting. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 09:01, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Gugak FM[edit]

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

unref article, tagged for notability for 5 years Boleyn (talk) 20:29, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 13:20, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 13:20, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 01:14, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as government-licensed broadcast radio stations have been held generally notable. Also, there is no deadline so the age of any tag is not a relevant reason for deletion. Article needs improvement but AfD is not cleanup. - Dravecky (talk) 21:53, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination withdrawn Thanks for your comments, Boleyn (talk) 10:03, 26 January 2013 (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'm closing it as speedy delete G7, the only constructive contributor to the article has asked for deletion DGG ( talk ) 05:00, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Ranni (entertainer)[edit]

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

Not significant or noteworthy enough to have a Wikipedia page Todd Friedman (talk) 01:15, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep: the nominator is a SPA who appears to be here only to disparage the reputation of the subject of that article. — Jeff G. ツ (talk) 01:34, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That would perhaps be true if the subject had a reputation to be disparaged. Please consider whether or not this man is actually significant enough to be included on Wikipedia, because if the answer is yes, the amount of quasi-internet famous people worthy of their own page would skyrocket. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.179.159.84 (talk) 01:52, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Regardless of the nominator's actions, I am unable to find any independent reviews, interviews, or published commentary on the article subject. The refs in the article go to self-published sources and/or promotional PR pieces. Subject apparently isn't notable yet. --| Uncle Milty | talk | 02:06, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Thanks, Jeff G. for pointing us and I agree with Uncle Milty. No significance now maybe later. Many thanks, NickAang (talk) 14:41, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 22:40, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 22:40, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nova Scotia-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 22:40, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Now, admittedly, this video[47] on Paul's youtube channel is an amazing testimonial. It reports that "all the girls are talking about Paul Ranni at college." Nevertheless, most of his videos have but a few hundred views each. While Paul tweeted this week that he loves having a wikipedia article[48], and I hate to hurt the feelings of this Role Model, and as much as the "Duke Fightmaster" episode of "This American Life" was super awesome and Paul Ranni reminds me of that so much I hope he reads this comment and learns from the Duke[49], I must say he is not notable.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 04:44, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete Has no one noticed that the articles creators has asked for deletion above. In any case the person is not notable and this article was created by an editor who has been paid to create around about a dozen promotional articles. Ridernyc (talk) 04:46, 26 January 2013 (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. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:06, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Gussmann Software Technologies Pvt. Ltd.[edit]

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

Tagged for notability for 5 years; couldn't establish notability Boleyn (talk) 20:32, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 13:26, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 13:26, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 13:26, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 13:26, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 01:13, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - does not pass Notability criteria for organization. google results zero.Jethwarp (talk) 13:41, 22 January 2013 (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 United States Senate election in Illinois, 2008. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:05, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Larry Stafford[edit]

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

Non-notable political activist and third party candidate. Sourcing needed to establish GNG does not exist. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:42, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. – Muboshgu (talk) 02:51, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 13:44, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Redirect to United States Senate election in Illinois, 2008. Subject appears not to have received significant coverage as described by WP:GNG. Subject has been mentioned in relation to the election, which he was a candidate in, however that would mean that the subject would fall under WP:BLP1E, and a redirect to the event should be left in the articlespace of the BLP.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 19:03, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 01:09, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete although normally politicians are notable, this one is much so and doesn't have the references to prove it JayJay^{What did I do?} 03:38, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to to United States Senate election in Illinois, 2008. Enos733 (talk) 04:22, 28 January 2013 (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. j⚛e decker ^talk 16:55, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Hollywood Saloon[edit]

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

Tagged for notability for 5 years; couldn't establish notability Boleyn (talk) 21:22, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 14:31, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 14:31, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 01:05, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Can't see anything to establish notability here after a bit of searching, no significant coverage ---- _nonsense ferret 01:59, 22 January 2013 (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 Cordon bleu . MBisanz ^talk 03:06, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Cordon Blue[edit]

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

This article is not notable, verifiable, or reliably sourced. A Google search failed to yield any results except the one specified in the article. Furthermore, the link to the Order of the Holy Ghost reveals nothing. The only potential match was at the Order of the Holy Spirit, under the Cordon Bleu section. The entire text of the article is taken from the source, and provides no relevant encyclopedic information. The only links to this article are from a userpage on anagrams and a British sitcom that could potentially link because of a spelling error (Cordon Blue vs. Cordon Bleu) FrigidNinja (talk) 21:29, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The connection between the name, emblem, and Order are explained at Le Cordon Bleu, where it explains how the emblem of the Order is said to have became connected with cooking. I am inclined to think that the best solution would be to make Cordon Blue a redirect to Le Cordon Bleu (as a likely misspelling) where the information is more fully explained. --Arxiloxos (talk) 22:38, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 14:34, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 01:05, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Cordon bleu as a likely misspelling. The emblem is pretty obscure, not notable and adequately covered in the other article. I rather doubt the French order spelled it "blue" in any case. Clarityfiend (talk) 01:20, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - clearly is a mispelling, I can't see the point in having a redirect, just adds to the confusion ---- _nonsense ferret 02:05, 22 January 2013 (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. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:01, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Foil imaging[edit]

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

Unreferenced since forever. Looks like there is a general, encyclopedic and probably notable topic hiding somewhere nearby, but this article is instead about one person's particular strand of it. If such an article is to stand, it has to show sources as to why that, and not merely foil printing in general, is the notable topic. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:49, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 05:18, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 05:18, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iowa-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 05:18, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

delete~~, or possibly merge with foil stamping~~ There's historical material on the latter subject which could be used if it were sourced properly, but as it stands this is promotional, and searches for the technique inevitably lead back to Myers, her device, or her company. Mangoe (talk) 13:49, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I hadn't found that article, but I'd be happy with a merge to it. Andy Dingley (talk) 18:46, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The more I think about it, the more I'm of the opinion that this is a technique that hasn't caught on. Improving foil stamping really can't rely on this utterly uncited article. Mangoe (talk) 19:37, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ·Add§hore· ^{Talk To Me!} 21:38, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 01:04, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Unsourced, and shamelessly self-promotional. An article about a technique invented by one person, whose MFA also apparently taught them industrial fabrication skills? Moreover, the product doesn't even exist yet, according to its own website. MSJapan (talk) 01:20, 27 January 2013 (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. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:35, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Eefoof[edit]

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

Came across this site because it was spammed to my email and I'd never heard of it before. A highbeam search for the original name, eefoof, turns up only two articles. One of them is actually about the website while the other mentions it in passing. A search for the supposed new name, Vume, comes up with nothing related on Highbeeam,

While the page claims to have had extensive coverage in the NYT and WSJ, a search returns nothing.

A regular google search returns some hits, but nothing I would consider substantial.

Looks to be a failed start up from 2006 that may be attempting to rebrand itself (hence the spam), but at the moment I think it fails to meet WP:GNG and WP:CORP.

Just noticed that the page creator, User:Alexannese, seems to have created the account, made this page and then never edited again. I'm guessing it was a PR job or company employee. Sædon ^talk 19:50, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No real assertions of notability. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 20:06, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 05:01, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ·Add§hore· ^{Talk To Me!} 21:39, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 01:01, 22 January 2013 (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. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 05:53, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You Need a Budget[edit]

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

Long tagged for improvement, it remains advertisement-ish in tone. Appears not a particularly notable desktop product or app. --EEMIV (talk) 02:03, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 11:41, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 11:41, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep - I cleaned up the article a bit by removing promotional content in the article. It appears to be a some what popular app based on the number of reveiws from tech sites. I'm inclined to keep for now although my position is not firm. Holyfield1998 (talk) 13:57, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep. Along with the few references listed in the article, I found a paragraph for it in this PCWorld list, this Entrepreneur list, and this lfpress.com article; sentences in this US News and World Report list, this NWI.com list, and this TheStreet article; mentions in this CS Monitor article and this Forbes article; and a bit in this Lifehacker post. Not the strongest references, but probably enough independent coverage for a short article. Dreamyshade (talk) 05:31, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 19:49, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Ho-hum article about a non-Notable product. References noted just above are not especially persuasive. GeorgeLouis (talk) 21:35, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ·Add§hore· ^{Talk To Me!} 21:39, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 01:00, 22 January 2013 (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 City god. (non-admin closure) Michaelzeng7 (talk) 20:41, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Cheng Huang Temple[edit]

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

unintelligible and unsourced Jac16888 ^Talk 18:32, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Certainly verging on the unintelligible, but independent sources can be found: [50]. That leaves the question of whether the place is notable? AllyD (talk) 18:47, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment A page with this has been recently deleted by a administrator. The recent page was also proposed for deletion. --74.131.177.233 (talk) 00:02, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Taiwan-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 04:49, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note – Similar articles Xian Ju Three Mountain Palace and God Temple are also nominated see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Xian Ju Three Mountain Palace & Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/God Temple ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 05:38, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ·Add§hore· ^{Talk To Me!} 21:43, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Question Are there multiple Cheng Huang Temples in Taiwan? I was looking through Google Books and found some independent sources which describe Cheng Huang Temple in Hsinchu City, Cheng Huang Temple in Taichung, Cheng Huang Temple in Taipei, and Cheng Huang Temple in Tainan (which AllyD pointed out). I couldn't find any listings of a temple in Kaohsiung. Am I missing something? Braincricket (talk) 22:26, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Cheng Huang(城隍) is City god. Temples worshiping city gods are called "Cheng Huang Temple", so there are hundreds of them. The article being nominated was about one of them: "Zuoying Cheng Huang Temple". I rewrote the article about the general Cheng Huang Temple and redirected "Zuoying Cheng Huang Temple" to a section about it in Lotus Lake.Uaat (talk) 15:28, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to City God. As Uaat mentioned, the article was initially created for Zauying Cheng Huang Temple in Kaohsiung but has evolved into a general definition. City god already covers both subjects in detail so I don't see a point in another content fork. Funny ^Pika! 21:55, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 00:58, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mediran (t • c) 10:43, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect or Merge to a correspondent article. Eduemoni ^↑talk↓ 14:13, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to city god. In English, the current title is slightly misleading; this is about a class of temples, not one temple of Cheng Huang; and the subject seems to be best covered by the chief article. If an specific city god temple is notable an article can be written about it. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 17:39, 29 January 2013 (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 YoungBloodZ. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:34, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

J-Bo[edit]

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

American rapper. Seems to fail WP:NMUSIC and WP:GNG. nly one released album (no charts, no singles charted, no reviews) and his personal coverage is very vague. I wasn't able to find any reliable source (although I did a fast scan). — ΛΧΣ²¹ 04:48, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 02:54, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 02:54, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to YoungBloodZ for now - Google News searches provided nothing to indicate he has established notability by himself. He recently produced a Rihanna song, Pour It Up, but nothing else recent. Additionally, I'm trying to search for good sources to improve the group's article but haven't found much despite that they have charted. However, this is typical with some hip hop artists. SwisterTwister talk 00:10, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Theopolisme (talk) 22:24, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 00:55, 22 January 2013 (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. This is a weak delete, but the arguments made for deletion were strong enough that I don't think this should be eligible for undeletion at WP:REFUND. I will consider undeleting it myself if anyone can find new sources that pass WP:RS, however. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 05:46, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Loving the Silent Tears[edit]

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

Contested prod. Although the article has been greatly expanded since prodding, the issue that led to prodding hasn't been resolved. No evidence of significant third-party coverage is shown in the article, there is no mention of critical reception, and I can't find any non-primary sources about this play on Google News archives. Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 08:12, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 09:32, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 09:32, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I've dug and found a few things, but so far I'm a little concerned over the limited sources I'm finding. Most of these are local community-type newspapers and student magazines. I am finding some stuff, but I'm not entirely satisfied with all of this to say "totally keep", but then I'm extremely picky at times. I did remove a lot of stuff from the article, as much of what was added tended to talk about the past accomplishments of some of the cast members and as notability is WP:NOTINHERITED, I went ahead and removed it. I did find mention of the performance on a local news station (for that area), but the YT video was uploaded by the musical, so using that as a source isn't an option. [51] Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 15:05, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or merge to Ching Hai very selectively. This one-off charity event / vanity project / publicity stunt does not have sufficient coverage from independent reliable sources to satisfy WP:GNG, nor does it qualify under any other standard. The sources offered are a couple of community papers (Los Cerritos Community Newspaper, Crescent Valley Weekly), an online USC magazine (Asia Pacific Arts), a couple of press release -type mentions (my.entertainment.yahoo.com, Theater Mania), some non-independent pieces in advertising/marketing enterprises (Footlights, stagebill.com), and a lengthy blog post on LA Weekly's website, the last of which is probably the most useful. These, plus the local TV news item that Tokyogir79 mentioned, are not sufficient to warrant a WP entry. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 13:38, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, KTC (talk) 00:08, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ·Add§hore· ^{Talk To Me!} 22:26, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 00:53, 22 January 2013 (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. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:59, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

List of slums in the Philippines[edit]

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

No inclusion criteria defined; highly POV; WP:listcruft. -- P 1 9 9 ✉ 00:43, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. As the nom indicates, there are no inclusion criteria given. Furthermore, of the five entries on this list, only two have articles of their own, and one of them, Pandacan, is described in its own article as follows: "Socioeconomically, the majority of the residents of Pandacan range from lower- to upper-middle class." That doesn't sound much like a slum. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 01:53, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. It's theoretically possible that a list of notable "slums" could be compiled for the Philippines, as for example we have List of favelas in Brazil, but the current list lacks criteria and thus isn't particularly helpful for navigation or information. For example, it points to our article on Tondo, which is arguable (Tondo is known for slums but is the entire district a slum?), rather than to our article on Smokey Mountain,which is the most famous squatter community in the country and one of the most famous in the world. -Arxiloxos (talk) 06:11, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 22:32, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 22:32, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

~~Comment~~ Merge & redirect to Poverty in the Philippines, The subject of Slums in the Philippines appears to have received sufficient significant coverage to pass WP:GNG, and might make a great section on an article such as Poverty in the Philippines, but it could be argued that slum is a POV-term that could be replaced with low-income affordable housing community. So I am not going to support deletion, but perhaps it could be used as a foundation about a more notable wider scope subject.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 17:59, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per lack of reliable sources that classifies these locations as slums.--Lenticel ^(talk) 00:01, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete due to a lack of reliable sources. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 10:41, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete due to lack of sources and absence of valid criteria. Very, very POV, and with factual errors as well. I wouldn't consider a merge at all considering the state of this article. A list of slums with sources, critera, and exposition would be great for Poverty in the Philippines, but that is not this list. Sang'gre Habagat (talk) 15:26, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and Objection to merge. An unsourced list with no narrative prose is completely unsuitable for merging. -- Whpq (talk) 19:52, 25 January 2013 (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) 19:03, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

List of bus routes in Central Suffolk[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

I can find no evidence that there is such a place as Central Suffolk with an upper case C. The article is an aggregation of local route articles of the type of which several have recently been unanimously deleted. I can find no evidence of significant secondary discussion of these groups of routes. Fails WP:GNG, WP:NOTDIR, WP:NOTTRAVEL at the least. Charles (talk) 00:38, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And the case of a letter has no relation to this, this isn't school. Adam Mugliston Talk 22:56, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You are missing the point there a bit - Charles is pointing out that central Suffolk with an uppercase C would indicate an actual place or district officially recognised to be a place with defined borders and therefore its own set of bus routes. Rcsprinter (yak) @ 21:00, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

delete per nom. Fails WP:GNG, WP:NOTDIR,and WP:NOTTRAVEL. If possible candidate; transwiki to Wikivoyage. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 10:02, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non notable. I would strongly suggest articles like this are unsuitable for transwiki-ing. Having spent an hour or two on Friday rewriting this article and trying to wade through the mess of changed operators, routes, numbers and areas it's now very clear to me that bus routes get out of date very, very quickly. But articles about them aren't, in the main, looked after in the long term. I'm increasingly convinced that they're an absolute mess and have no place on any wiki project. Now, a prose article, sure. Sections in the articles about specific areas, sure. But lists of actual routes? Hardly ever. Blue Square Thing (talk) 16:33, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 22:13, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 22:13, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 22:13, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Transwiki to Wikivoyage, a more suitable Wikimedia foundation website for this type of content. Northamerica1000^(talk) 11:16, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to a single list of bus routes in Suffolk along with all the other smaller lists of buses scattered around Suffolk. Rcsprinter (yak) @ 21:00, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Assuming that significant coverage in reliable secondary sources not closely affiliated to the subject could be found to establish notability for such an article it is still hard to see how it could be compatible with WP:NOTDIR and WP:NOTTRAVEL.--Charles (talk) 11:19, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- A list of bus routes for Suffolk as a whole would be even more impossible to keep anywhere near up to date. Trust me, I redid this Central Suffolk article after it was abandoned and out of date - it's a nightmare and almost impossible to find up to date secondary sources on. Now, a prose article - something like Buses in Suffolk (or, perhaps, Public Transport in Suffolk - that's possible to do. Rather like Buses in Lowestoft - which is unlikely to ever be much more than a stub btw. For that sort of article it's relatively possible to find secondary sources and, I imagine, suggest some form of notability for the subject. But a list? For the whole of Suffolk? Really, really, really bad idea. Blue Square Thing (talk) 12:53, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Blue Square Thing. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 05:44, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom (fails WP:GNG, WP:NOTTRAVEL, WP:NOTDIR). Also per Blue Square Thing, it might not fail WP:GNG if it were for a whole county, but that would be completely unmaintainable. --Storkk (talk) 11:15, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I am in agreement that this article should be deleted under WP:NOTDIR. In regards to transwiki, I'm not entirely sure if making our problem-their problem is a reasonable thing. If you look at Wikivoyage they rarely include bus routes unless its a highly notable area such as New York or London. I think the fundamental problem in that bus routes change so rapidly that having an article on them ultimately leaves Wikipedia with an article that is wrong. Mkdw ^talk 00:10, 1 February 2013 (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 Ackerman, No Conesnsus on other politicians. The discussion on the other two folks is mixed, and some opinions are ambiguous respect to them; no prejudice against renomination of them individually. j⚛e decker ^talk 16:51, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Albert (Isaac) Ackerman[edit]

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

Minor local policitian that fails WP:POLITICIAN. Most coverage I saw was either obligatory campaign coverage or WP:Run-of-the-mill coverage of office duties. He may become notable some day, but not yet.

I am also nominating the following related pages as similarly non-notable local policiticans that fail WP:POLITICIAN and have little coverage aside from obligatory campaign coverage and run of the mill coverage of duties etc. Note that "mayor" is a committeeman selected by their peers, not as an actual election. The position is a pro tem type position.:

Niteshift36 (talk) 16:11, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 15:50, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 15:50, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The mayor of a municipality, regardless how selected, is the chief elected official of that entity, its "head of state" if you will, and its legal and symbolic spokesperson. I do not know anything about the specific New Jersey municipality under discussion here, but I would expect that the mayor of any city of significant size is almost certainly notable. Kestenbaum (talk) 21:10, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If that were the case, WP:POLITICIAN would probably reflect that, don't you think? And no, they aren't the chief elected official. They are an elected official appointed to a position. And, this isn't a city under discussion, it's a township. Niteshift36 (talk) 13:18, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Correction It isn't a pro-tem-type mayor, but a chairman-type. This type of mayor is exceedingly common in the United States, btw. – Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 21:34, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Kind of a minor difference. They're not elected by the population as a mayor. They're picked by peers to essentially be a spokesman invested with the powers a mayor would have if they had an actual mayor. Niteshift36 (talk) 13:18, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete (referring to Ackerman article) - does not meet WP:POLITICIAN and there is little more to impart than already covered on Lakewood_Township,_New_Jersey#Local_government. Shortened content from the other 2 articles could also be added there, as neither seem to have any detailed coverage outside the local community they serve. —Baldy Bill (talk) 15:47, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ·Add§hore· ^{Talk To Me!} 00:06, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Ackerman / Keep Lichtenstein and Miller The article for Meir Lichtenstein makes a more than credible of notability as the first Haredi mayor of a largely non-haredi community, and the articles for both Lichtenstein and Miller are backed by appropriate sources establishing notability. The article for Ackerman doesn't meet this standard. Alansohn (talk) 20:06, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Alan, what am I missing with Miller? All I see is local paper stuff that is really not that significant. Niteshift36 (talk) 21:30, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Ackerman as he fails WP:POLITICIAN criterion of significant coverage. I haven't yet looked into the other two and thus have no opinion about them. Majoreditor (talk) 00:26, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete local official only. Enos733 (talk) 04:28, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Legacy Recordings. MBisanz ^talk 03:04, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Playlist (album series)[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Sources are nothing but press releases and primary sources. While some of the albums are notable, the series as a whole doesn't seem to be. Deleted in 2010 but restored; last AFD failed to reach consensus, with no real !votes after two relists, just back and forth discussion that got nowhere. I could find no serious sources on the series as a whole. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 20:02, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:01, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No independent coverage of the series. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 17:23, 28 December 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, Courcelles 02:51, 31 December 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, Mediran (t • c) 10:11, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. As per nom. 1292simon (talk) 10:50, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Two previous AfDs failed to turn up reliable sources. --Cerebellum (talk) 18:30, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Researching to find some info and dumping it into the article to prove that sources do exist. You're welcome to help out. :)--Coin945 (talk) 19:19, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

~~Everything you added is just a directory listing from Allmusic. Those prove that the albums exist, but in no way do they assert notability.~~ read the damn intro, Hammer. Anyway, most of the sources you added were about individual albums, not the whole series. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 19:41, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Finished. Oh, hi Ten Pound Hammer. Nice to see you :) Unfortunately, your comment was a bit premature. Try reassessing the article now. I'm off to bed. Cya tomorrow when we continue this AFD.--Coin945 (talk) 20:31, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 23:00, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Also, there's this, that I havent even gotten around to shifting through: 6 pages full of Billboard-related GoogleBooks hits.--Coin945 (talk) 02:45, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 00:03, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Legacy Recordings per User:Thesteve in the last deletion discussion. All the sources added to the article seem to be about individual albums, and not the album series. WP:NOTINHERITED applies. In addition, most of the sources only have passing mentions of the individual albums in question, rather than significant coverage. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 05:37, 27 January 2013 (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.