< 22 January	24 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. I would be happy to add the contents to the user space of Govvy or Jeff5102 if they want to incorporate some of it elsewhere. J04n(talk page) 15:16, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Mundialito, Artemio Franchi trophy and FIFA Confederations Cup statistics[edit]

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

No formal grounds for grouping these together: pure OR and synthesis. Kevin McE (talk) 23:52, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 04:36, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 04:36, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 04:36, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – clear case of WP:SYNT in order to arrive at such an article. C 679 08:00, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - stats and OR overkill. Giant Snowman 09:46, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This sounds like an interesting topic to me, is there not a way to use some of this article in FIFA Confederations Cup? Also there must be more citations out there? Govvy (talk) 13:51, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Govvy. It is too interesting to remove it completely.Jeff5102 (talk) 10:21, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - WP:ITSINTERESTING is not a valid reason for keeping an article. All the information here is already on the relevant tournament articles, which is exactly where they should be. ★ Bald Zebra ★ ^talk 12:29, 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. (non-admin closure) TBr and ley ^{(what's up)} 02:17, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hovnatanyan family[edit]

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

Not sourced enough to understand notability. As the artists are presented as a family we may not decide which member(s) give notability to the group. Maybe only the notable one(s) should have a WP article, not altogether. E4024 (talk) 23:01, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Definitely notable as they have been respected painters in the Russian Czarist Empire. Just typing "Hovnatanian" on google books yields 596 results. Hakob Hovnatanian alone yields 100+. Theres no deletion proposal needed for such articles like this when all there needs to be done is sources added (there are tags for that). This deletion proposal is of bad faith since E4024 has been trying to ban many Armenian and Greeks articles he has come across. See: Zahrad, Miss Globe Organisation (he is using this deletion proposal to ultimately ban Araksi Cetinyan which he voted to delete as well, List of Cyprus islets, and last but not least Armenians of Dersim (which has been succesfully deleted because I just transferred the data of the article since I didn't feel I should deal with simultaneous bans on Armenian articles). He has at times used speedy deletions as well. He has consistenly voted delete in Armenian articles like Sarkis Antikajian, Araksi Cetinyan (as mentioned above), and so forth. This also includes him consistently trying to ban Armenian and Greek users See: SPI on me, Markus2685, and more. I don't like pinpointing what he does but because quite frankly I don't care. But all I ask from E4024 is for him to work together to expand wikipedia and be more constructive rather than destructive. Proudbolsahye (talk) 00:11, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Need a Novalgine or something similar? I keep a pack just beside my computer to use in case I come by such edits of yours like the above... --E4024 (talk) 19:48, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Proudbolsahye. It should also be noted that the subject of the article is notable enough that there are equivalent articles on the Armenian, Georgian, Russian and French Wikipedias. It is more useful and constructive to initially call for sources and citations (using Refimprove templates) instead of quickly opting for a deletion proposal. Jackal 04:28, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep & As long as I understand, "Hovnatanian family" ("Hakob Hovantanian") is common in English. Takabeg (talk) 05:23, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There are even craters named after them! Proudbolsahye (talk) 05:55, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep. Nominator didn't even bother to perform any of the steps that are supposed to be done WP:BEFORE nominating for deletion. No effort was made to actually try to find sources on the family/its members before nominating for deletion, and no effort was made to even slap a ((notability)) tag on it for a few days to let others do the dirty work for him—less than ten minutes passed between the time when E4024 made his first edit to the page and when he nominated it for deletion because the article was "not sourced enough". When searches are actually done, as others above me have shown, a not insubstantial number of English sources (to speak nothing of Armenian or perhaps Russian) do cover this family and/or its members in moderate detail—not enough for a GA, but certainly enough for an article of this short length. This is a best a sloppy and lazy nomination, and at worst an act of deliberate disruption on the part of E4024, especially when taking into account the troubling points raised by Proundbolsahye. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 07:41, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 22:58, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 22:58, 24 January 2013 (UTC) [reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Armenia-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 22:58, 24 January 2013 (UTC) [reply]

Keep/comment The previous arguments for keep are valid. I have to observe that, as someone who got involved in the Araksi Cetinyan delete debate, to the extent where it actually got too much and I had to quietly step back, I have to note that there are obviously ongoing issues/tensions between Wikipedians here which are actually making it quite unpleasant for those that happen to get caught up in the crossfire. Mabalu (talk) 11:37, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Unfortunately, User:E4024 continuously abuses Wikipedia:Civility, Wikipedia:Assume good faith, Wikipedia:Neutral point of view and try to Turkify articles with his antipathy towards ethnic/religious minorities in Turkey (especially towards Armenians). Where can I deal with these problem ? Here ? Takabeg (talk) 23:00, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This user E4024 is has antipathy towards ethnic/religious minorities in Turkey? Really? Let us see whom you will be able to WP:Canvass with that bait? (I can tell you several names by heart; but not that because they believe what you say, maybe to get rid of a user who shows them a mirror.) I am sorry for this uncalled for nonsense within this deletion discussion. --E4024 (talk) 23:11, 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 redirect to U-KISS. J04n(talk page) 15:20, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Kevin Woo[edit]

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

Not notable on his own account. The article merely recites the group activities, what is left as individual activities can be discussed in the band's article. The sources don't reflect on hos notability outside of his band. Should be a redirect to band page. 小龙 (Timish) # ^{xiǎolóng de xìnxiāng} 22:33, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 23:04, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 23:04, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 23:04, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to U-KISS; subject does not appear to be independently notable outside of the band. As such a redirect is in order.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 02:33, 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. After nominator has withdrawn, there is unanimous consensus not to delete. Salvidrim! ✉ 12:59, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Jump Raven[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) 13:23, 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☆★ 16:18, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 16:18, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Sometimes video games like this, from the mid-90's, don't have much coverage on the internet, but did receive coverage in printed magazines, which was the medium of choice back then. It may be worth searching to see if there's any proof of coverage there, FYI. Sergecross73 msg me 16:23, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: As already pointed out, the game was released a few years before gaming websites became popular, so 1990s gaming magazines are the best places to look for coverage. The article itself mentions that Dragon (magazine) published a game review. Mobygames lists four additional magazines which reviewed the game. I seem to recall seeing a game review published in Computer Gaming World sometime in '94 or '95 too, but I don't have time at the moment to dig through my collection of back issues. So that makes five, possibly six, magazine published reviews. That should be sufficient to satisfy WP:GNG. --Mike Agricola (talk) 18:13, 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, Michaelzeng7 (talk) 21:55, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It seems to have been moderately popular indeed Alfy32 (talk) 22:18, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination withdrawn Thanks for your hard work, Boleyn (talk) 10:11, 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 keep. Nominator has withdrew their nomination. (non-admin closure) TBr and ley ^{(what's up)} 19:18, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ricky Maymi[edit]

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

Tagged for notability for 5 years; I couldn't establish notability. However, with so many other problems in the article, maybe someone can find it hidden in here? Boleyn (talk) 20:30, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. As a member of at least two notable bands (The Brian Jonestown Massacre and The Wild Swans, with plenty of sources available to verify this) he passes WP:NMUSIC and his musical partnership with Steve Kilbey has received plenty of coverage, so make that three bands. He also played on Henry Priestman's album ([1]). --Michig (talk) 19:02, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 20:49, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 20:49, 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, Michaelzeng7 (talk) 21:53, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Withdraw nomination Thanks for your hard work, Boleyn (talk) 10:21, 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 keep. Nominator has withdrew their nomination. (non-admin closure) TBr and ley ^{(what's up)} 06:36, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Morrisonville Times[edit]

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

Tagged for notability for 5 years and unref; I couldn't establish notability. Possibly worth merge to Morrisonville, Illinois. Boleyn (talk) 20:51, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: verifiably published from 1875 to present day, and held in several major libraries. PamD 23:35, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Now has refs, have removed the "Unref" tag. PamD 23:36, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 11:38, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 11:38, 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, Michaelzeng7 (talk) 21:52, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as obviously of encyclopedic interest. --Michig (talk) 09:00, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This topic is a long-published weekly newspaper from a Midwest American town. The topic is one of enduring significance to researchers including Wikipedia editors. Unscintillating (talk) 00:41, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination withdrawn Thanks for your hard work improving the article and demonstating notability. Boleyn (talk) 08:01, 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 WP:WITHDRAWN . (non-admin closure) ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 01:49, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Iland[edit]

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

Using full name:

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

I am unable to find any secondary sources to establish notability for this business. Joja lozzo 21:23, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree that iland is not notable enough. I will work on collecting articles to demonstrate iland's notability and present them here. I am an iland employee, but no hard feelings if a consensus develops to delete the article. Damian (talk) 00:03, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm neutral about the company and look forward to seeing what reliable secondary sources we can come up with. Since you are an employee, I assume you may know of or can find out about independent news stories that Google isn't picking up. Let me know if you have any questions about notability or reliable sources. Joja lozzo 01:46, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Here are some of the better ones I have found so far:

[2],[3],[4],[5],[6],[7],[8],[9],[10],[11],[12],[13],[14], [15],[16],[17],[18],

There are a couple that are probably right on line of acceptable sources. I think most of them are pretty solid, though. Damian (talk) 19:42, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's a good start. It would be a big help if you would filter out the blogs and press releases and highlight the non-self-published sources. Thanks. Joja lozzo 21:55, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

None of them were press releases or self-published, I removed any articles that were in blog format:[19],[20],[21],[22],[23],[24],[25],[26],[27] Damian (talk) 23:19, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. This is a good set of sources to establish notability. I don't know what you did to locate these (and would like to know if you care to share) but I very much appreciate the results and withdraw my proposal for AfD. Please use these sources to support the article content. Joja lozzo 23:34, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 23:31, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 23:31, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 23:31, 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. ·Add§hore· ^{Talk To Me!} 10:44, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Larry Allcock[edit]

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

Contested PROD, the given reason being that 'the link to the authors name was problematic. (a link to a csd'd page)Hardly surprising, there seems little proof that either work or author exist, let alone are notable. TheLongTone (talk) 21:35, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No evidence provided that this character is discussed in any independent sources at all (much less reliable ones) and, performing the usual Google, GNews, GBooks searches, I could find no references to the character at all. --Arxiloxos (talk) 23:05, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There's nothing out there to show that this character is ultimately notable. Given that the book is unfinished and there's no coverage of the book (Superfluity) in general, I'm going to say that it's unlikely that this will get that coverage anytime soon.Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 01:05, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 23:35, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 23:35, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - We should not have an article for a non-notable character from a non-notable book, neither of which have received any independent coverage, even insignificant or unreliable. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 02:42, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as definitely a non-notable character. ~satellizer~~talk~ 07:58, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as hoax. Only source that is similar is another wiki created by the same person one day later. Mkdw ^talk 04:04, 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 delete. The subjects didn't want this, the original authors didn't understand the verifiability requirements for biographies of living persons a year ago, Wikipedia doesn't do permanently read-only "authorized biographies" (whether by students or subjects), "if article X then article Y" is a fundamentally fallacious argument that does not reflect human knowledge, and things are not going to improve here with more discussion as several novices clearly don't understand the workings of an open encyclopaedia-writing project that volunteers run in their spare time. If a time comes in the future that these subjects' lives and works are properly and independently documented in depth outwith Wikipedia, then perhaps someone who has no conflict of interest can start biographies properly. This discussion has been courtesy blanked. Uncle G (talk) 08:40, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Steve Hall (criminologist)[edit]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. The subjects didn't want this, the original authors didn't understand the verifiability requirements for biographies of living persons a year ago, Wikipedia doesn't do permanently read-only "authorized biographies" (whether by students or subjects), "if article X then article Y" is a fundamentally fallacious argument that does not reflect human knowledge, and things are not going to improve here with more discussion as several novices clearly don't understand the workings of an open encyclopaedia-writing project that volunteers run in their spare time. If a time comes in the future that these subjects' lives and works are properly and independently documented in depth outwith Wikipedia, then perhaps someone who has no conflict of interest can start biographies properly. This discussion has been courtesy blanked. Uncle G (talk) 08:40, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Simon Winlow[edit]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. postdlf (talk) 18:55, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Brooke Allison[edit]

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

Tagged for notability and outdated material for years. Does not meet notability, an unknown artist.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Julser1 (talk • contribs) 01:46, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Nominator failed to add this AfD to the daily log, so please take the 7 days as starting from this datestamp. --Michig (talk) 20:09, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I have improved the article and I think notability is clear - hit record, songs on a soundtrack, plenty of coverage. --Michig (talk) 20:10, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Michig's improvements to the article; subject meets WP:GNG and WP:MUSICBIO. Gong show 07:24, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 00:06, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 00:06, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Artist's single has charted relatively high on the Billboards and seems to be sourced well per WP:MUSICBIO. Mkdw ^talk 04:10, 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 delete. GB fan 01:54, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Aquaman (film)[edit]

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

not an article Klemen Kocjancic (talk) 19:51, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless substantially improved It currently consists of 1 word, but it's only been in existence 90 minutes. It could be a WP:SPEEDY A3: no content, unless the editor who created it returns very soon. --Colapeninsula (talk) 21:11, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete per A3 and/or A1 - The article has no content that would be worth userfying or continuing at this point in time. If the author decides to continue work, I think the author can easily rewrite the article in his or her userspace. I have tagged the article for speedy deletion. Michaelzeng7 (talk) 22:09, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per above; for the record, however, note that the fictional Aquaman film that was a central plot point on Entourage and the so-far unsuccessful efforts to produce a real Aquaman film are well-covered at Aquaman in popular media. One might consider redirecting this title to that article.--Arxiloxos (talk) 23:12, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/Redirect to Aquaman_in_popular_media#Aquaman_film. This would have merit as a redirect to that section, but not as its own article. The film was originally supposed to release this year but never moved past the pre-planning stages as far as I can tell. There's nothing that can be put in this article that isn't already in the above section. If/when this does get made and filming starts, we can create an article. At this point in time there's not really much merit in having an article for a film that might not get made.Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 00:51, 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 Deleted as vandalism. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:35, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Everything and Nothing: But Referring to Something[edit]

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

This is collection of things that the article is not about, without actually saying what it is about. It was nominated for speedy deletion under criterion A1 (no context), but that is explicitly for "very short articles" only - meaning this does not meet that criterion. It equally does not meet the criteria for G1 (patent nonsense) as it's perfectly understandable, A3 (no content) as there is plenty of content (just nothing relevant to anything), or A7 (no indication of importance) as while there is no indication of importance, there is no indication of what it actually is, so it is not possible to know whether it is one of the explict topics eligible for A7. Thryduulf (talk) 19:30, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete - The article seems like an attempt at a disambiguation page, but is clearly makes very little sense, bordering on vandalism. I don't see an opportunity to salvage it. - Mr X 19:37, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete Spam containing random copy-pasted album reviews. Alfy32 (talk) 19:53, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete The article is spam, meant to be funny. Teammm ^talk
_email 20:43, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted as vandalism (now where did I put that "AFD for Dummies" book on how to close an AFD...) --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:33, 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 contents of the page has been userfied to User:Holyroger/sandbox J04n(talk page) 15:53, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Strength to Stand Conferences[edit]

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

Non-notable Christian organization: the conferences are run by the Scott Dawson Evangelistic Association, who also aren't notable. I can't even find any reliable sources for the head of that organisation, Scott Dawson. I can find lots on Google (lots of social media presence, for instance), but nothing that's reliable. I can't find any news articles, for instance. The sources used aren't reliable either. The article just fails WP:GNG and WP:ORG. —Tom Morris (talk) 17:48, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I working very hard to hard to ensure this article is verifiable as the subject matter is pretty great. For years now thousands of people are attending these conferences and some of the biggest names in Christian music. There are many other conferences similar to this that follow the same format. I hope you all can instead of deleting, give some imput to improve formatting. Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Holyroger (talk • contribs) 17:57, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If the article fails to be sourced, then the only appropriate action we can do is to delete it. In terms of formatting, it looks fine. But without sourcing, we have to delete it. —Tom Morris (talk) 18:08, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 18:11, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 18:12, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate the discussion instead of instant deletion. I know that the material is worthy of wikipedia as these annual conferences/concerts are growing in the south, but I do hope to have everything right and the sources correct. Instead of termination, a possible movement from here to the sandbox or my userspace would be highly appreciated. Honestly, after months of editing I hope that I can finally have this approved. I am very much open to suggestions on better sources. Thanks Tom. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Holyroger (talk • contribs) 20:01, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, if it gets deleted, I hope the closer would userfy it. The deletion debate takes a week, and people will hopefully have a good faith attempt to find sources. —Tom Morris (talk) 20:08, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, moreover this is continuing to become edited, as there are more sources that will be added. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Holyroger (talk • contribs) 22:09, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:41, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -- This appears to be a long series of conferneces, with a significant attendence, but we neither have articles on Scott Dawson Evangelistic Association nor on Scott Dawson. If we did this might be notable. If you belive that it is notable but the articel is too incomplete to be judged yet, perhaps it should be userified to the main editor's Sandbox. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:57, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Peter, yes this is a notable conference due history and the number of people who attend annually and is growing in the south. It is true that it is created by Scott Dawson, however I believe that creating THIS Strength to Stand page first would be ideal as most people are familiar with it. Once this page is approved, a page concerning Scott Dawson would seem more reasonable since this is one of the biggest conferences he has orchestrated. And yes If there was no possibility of this page staying here, userfying it would be a great alternative as I continue to approve it. I would hope that this page could stand based on the conference's history and growth, and then later a page about Scott Dawson could be created. Thanks for the advice.Holyroger (talk) 14:21, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I just updated the Scott Dawson section with more info about another annual conference he does, "stadium fest" which sees over 20,000 in attendance. Honestly the Stadium Fest conference could have its own page, so I didn't include much history on it since this particular article is primarily about the strength to stand conference.Holyroger (talk) 14:21, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As far as sources go, would any of you advise incorporating more sources on other notable Scott Dawson events in THIS article, or creating separate articles for each event? Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Holyroger (talk • contribs) 14:23, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

HI users, I would like to point out this wikipedia page as an example : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atlanta_Dogwood_Festival Like that page, my main goal for this article is to write about the festival/ conference itself rather that promote its creators. The Atlanta Dogwood Festival doesn't give much information about the founders but more so, just about its event. I was hoping to go that route for now.Holyroger (talk) 17:09, 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. WP:SNOW (non-admin closure) TBr and ley ^{(what's up)} 19:22, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

List of Initial D characters and teams[edit]

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

A giant list of in-universe detail, all completely unsourced (original research), with WAY too much detail (a detailed table for every character!)

effectively WP:ALLPLOT, no commentary, critique, etc. Gaijin42 (talk) 17:42, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep/Fix - Strictly speaking, the "too much detail" argument doesn't warrant deletion, despite the fact that it's an accurate assessment of the article. As a rule of thumb list pages like this exist to provide relevant information that is too voluminous to fit in the main article page. It's certainly got some serious issues in its current form, but if someone would like to be bold and fix the article, that would really be the best course of action. Deleting an article that addresses a notable topic or appropriately supplements another article on a notable topic because it is written poorly is somewhat of a nuclear option that should be reserved until some attempts to fix the issue have been made. Any statements about the series can be sourced at least to an episode or publication volume, and extreneous information can be removed easily enough. If attempting to fix the article proves to render it unencyclopedic or no longer useful/notable, I would agree with removal at that point but insofar it appears that no attempt at cleaning up some of the issues above have been maintained or even raised on the article's talk page. --Oni Ookami Alfador^Talk|@ 20:37, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WP:SOFIXIT notwithstanding, this article is better served starting from scratch. Nothing is sourced, everything is in universe. Sourcing things to episodes is problematic as that is a WP:PRIMARY source, and analysis of what that primary says is WP:OR. We make exceptions for that for brief explanations of the plot etc, but in this case that would be 100% of the article. Gaijin42 (talk) 21:06, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Granted it's not intended to be an end-all list, looking at WP:DEL#REASON, I don't see anything that justifies outright deletion because an article is "too far gone." The notability of the subject matter doesn't seem to be in contention. Perhaps the correct course of action is to replace the existing article contents with the first new version of "starting from scratch," but deleting the article is neither necessary nor justified to serve that purpose. The AFD page does suggest such a course of action, and unless there are concerns about the notability of the article, bringing it down a barebones list of details (names, perhaps cars, some basic role in the series that can be easily cited to an episode/volume). WP:PRIMARY does address this, as "A primary source may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the source but without further, specialized knowledge. For example, an article about a novel may cite passages to describe the plot, but any interpretation needs a secondary source." By that virtue, which is used in almost every quality article covering a work of fiction, the factual statements that would make up the vast majority of the article are perfectly acceptable to be sourced via citations to the episodes and volumes. The biggest concern lies with the fact that no one has even made a token effort to fix the article, aside from a drive-by posting of a template at the top of the page without discussion. --Oni Ookami Alfador^Talk|@ 21:56, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I would question the ability of a normal viewer without specialized knowledge to glean the bulk of the car details (specific part numbers?) from watching/reading the show. Futher it is well accepted that some WP:ALLPLOT issue move into copyright infringement, especially when unaccompanied by any other content. regarding deletion policy, I personally think #14 would apply, there is a risk of #2 (as mentioned just previously) and as #8 notability is not inherited, the characters themselves are likely not notable (Any sources discussing them directly not in the context of the show/books?, any allusions to those characters in unrelated works?) #7 is also a possibility as it seems the only sources are WP:PRIMARY (which also lends towards notability). WP:NOTCLEANUP, but I think we are very close to the "no usable content" clause of that guideline.

~~However, if you are open to blanking the page and starting from scratch, I would be willing to withdraw my nomination.~~ Gaijin42 (talk) 22:16, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

On further review of the wikiproject videogames guidelines, I believe this does not meet them.

it is important not to clutter an article with a detailed description of how to play it or an excessive amount of non-encyclopedic trivia. A general rule of thumb to follow if unsure: If the content only has value to people actually playing the game, it is unsuitable. Always remember the bigger picture: video game articles should be readable and interesting to non-gamers.
WP:GAMECRUFT
- #1 Non-notable articles and spinouts: Avoid creating new articles on non-notable topics. A notable topic must receive significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. A smaller article should only be split from a larger topic if the new article would itself be notable.
- #5 A concise plot summary is appropriate to cover a notable game, character, or setting. Information beyond that is unnecessary and should be removed, as articles should focus on the real-world elements of a topic, such as creation and reception
- #6 (debatable) Specific point values, achievements and trophies, time-limits, levels, character moves, character weight classes, and so on are considered inappropriate. Sometimes a concise summary is appropriate if it is essential to understanding the game or its significance in the industry.Gaijin42 (talk) 22:27, 23 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) Gaijin42 (talk) 00:10, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 04:07, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 04:07, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 04:07, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Needs massive cleanup but AFD is not for that. Initial D is a multi-media franchise, a list of characters is reasonable to include as it would be far too large in a franchise article. --MASEM (t) 05:01, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, fixup, and Rename to List of Initial D characters, the teams bit is not needed but big character lists are commonplace and acceptable on wikipedia and can be sourced through Japanese sources as well. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 12:39, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per Knowledgekid. Character lists are appropriate for large works. Axem Titanium (talk) 16:09, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Listing the characters of a notable series is a common and long accepted practice. This is a long running popular manga, and has spawned numerous animated series. Dream Focus 01:12, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I've just spent all day rewriting the whole article so it is more in line with your guidelines. 130.220.8.244 (talk) 09:09, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but with cleanup and moving to List of Initial D characters - As it stands now, the current Initial D article's a mess (a shame since it used to be my favorite show, and m.o.v.e's music was what led me to like J-Pop and discover artists like Mami Kawada and KOTOKO), so merging back will just be a burden. Just some dedication and more sources are needed for the article to be cleaned up. However, per Knowledgekid87, the "and teams" part of the article sound awkward and thus needs to go. The teams can serve as subsection, however. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 02:24, 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. MBisanz ^talk 02:51, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Shayan Anique Akhtar[edit]

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

Courtesy/procedural nomination. Complicated situation. Originally looks to have been a vanity page on a person involved in a bit of a minor scandal in Pakastan. Within ~~minutes~~ hours, details of the scandal were added to the article. The article's creator has since tried a number of ways to get it deleted, ending up with adding an AFD notice to the page, but not building out this AFD debate page itself. I'm doing so for him. The page creator will need to give their own reasons for deletion, but the main reason I can see would be the question of whether or not the subject actually meets notability requirements. Note that the BLP aspects of the negative information are also being looked at, as I have filed a report at WP:BLPN. - TexasAndroid (talk) 17:01, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I want this article to be deleted because It is based on me and I created this on Wikipedia as my bio — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shayan Anique (talk • contribs)

As the person who declined the G7 and suggested AfD, I think I should mention Wikipedia:BLP#Deletion of BLPs of relatively unknown subjects and Wikipedia:Deletion policy#Deletion of biographies and_BLPs, if there aren't any real compelling reasons to keep the article. I myself would lean towards deleting per Shayan's request, with the understanding that he should not recreate it, and if it is recreated (or not deleted in the first place), he does not get control over its content, as long as it's supported by sources. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 17:06, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please delete this article it is based on my bio — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shayan Anique (talk • contribs)

Keep The article was created as a self-promotional vanity page. Personally, I would at that stage happily have deleted it as promotional. However, other editors moved in and added content, including providing evidence that the author/subject of the article was all that he claimed to be. The author then decided to have it deleted. The fact that the author of the self-promotional article is unhappy that his attempt to abuse Wikipedia to spread his propaganda has backfired is not a valid reason for deletion. It is quite simple: if you don't want the negative aspects of your activities published on Wikipedia, then don't create a promotional article about yourself here. The subject certainly satisfies Wikipedia's notability guidelines, as there is a huge amount of coverage in reliable sources. All of that coverage is a direct result of the subject's spreading propaganda about wonderful things he claimed top have done, but however it came about, he has received far more than enough media attention to qualify for an article. His disappointment on finding that he doesn't own the Wikipedia article he created, and cannot make sure that it remains as a dishonest piece of self-promotion, is not a valid reason for deletion.

With reference to Writ Keeper's comments, the first link he gives is merely a quote from the second, which says link at "Deletion of BLPs of relatively unknown subjects" says "Discussions concerning biographical articles of relatively unknown, non-public figures, where the subject has requested deletion and there is no rough consensus, may be closed as delete. Poorly sourced biographical articles of unknown, non-public figures, where the discussions have no editor opposing the deletion, may be deleted after discussions have been completed." (Italics in the original.) How unknown is "relatively unknown"? He has received very substantial amounts of media coverage, including in The Times of India, India.com, JWorldTimes, ZeeNews, Awaztoday, Zimbio, www.columnpk.com, propakistani.pk, etc etc. Whether there will turn out to be a "rough consensus" remains to be seen, of course. JamesBWatson (talk) 17:42, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Of course; I wasn't suggesting that those policies require us to delete it; hence the AfD. I was just suggesting that, unless someone has a reason to keep it (and they might!), I don't see the harm in deleting it, in accord with the subject's wishes. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 18:01, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. We don't have control of other articles of people that perform certain actions to get attention. This one we do have some measure of control over. If I wrote a fictitous entry about me in IMBD, Then created a wikipedia article on it and the media reported the hoax, would that article be deleted?--Canoe1967 (talk) 18:13, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I created same article on me some months ago which got deleted http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Shayan_Anique Now why this article is not removed that I written on me with my full name "Shayan Anique Akhtar" — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shayan Anique (talk • contribs) 19:35, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The previous article was at Shayan Anique. The key differences that I see is that noone protested the G7 speedy deletion that previous time. Both times had other people editing after you, so the G7 was possibly invalid in the previous instance as well. You got it deleted in both cases when you blanked the page. But this time one of the other editors protested, and that led to a closer examination of the history, and the realization that you were not the only significant contributor to the article. And once that had been pointed out to me, I realized that my G7 speedy deletion was not valid. "Speedy deletion" is intended for very, very narrow circumstances. If the circumstances are not met, then speedy deletion is invalid. G7 is mostly intended for the removal of mistakenly created pages. It says that articles where the original *and only significant* contributor either requests deletion or blanks the article may be speedy deleted. However, you were not the only significant contributor, and once this was pointed out to me, I had to reverse my speedy deletion. The previous time there was also another editor who had edited the page, but their work was mostly formatting, categories, etc. And they did not protest the G7 deletion. - TexasAndroid (talk) 19:51, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your quick reply. As I proposed the article I made other contributed in it for deletion. Can it be deleted after further consideration? --Shayan Anique (talk) 20:06, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Once you create the article you do not control it. As I mentioned, G7 deletion, speedy deletion where the original author wants it gone, is mostly intended for mistakenly created articles, and does not apply once there are other significant contributors. You are no longer the only author of that page. And the fact that the article is about you does not give you any special power over it. There are other rules around the handling of negative content on biographies of living people, but it sounds like there may very well be good sourcing for the information on the scandal itself. Which means that, if the article survives this deletion debate, it will likely continue to contain information on the scandal. I'm sorry, but that's how it goes. If the information is verifiable in Reliable, Independent sources, then it generally is appropriate for the article.

Wikipedia strives for a Neutral Point of View. Among other things, this means that we generally present both sides of an issue. In your case, if it is decided that you are notable by Wikipedia's standards, it looks like it will be in good part because of the scandal itself. Which means that there's no way Wikipedia could have an article on you without it covering the scandal as well.

One possible point for you, being at the center of the scandal, you likely are highly aware of what coverage is out there. If there is any Reliable, Independent sourcing that counters any of the scandal claims, and you could point us towards it, then that could be used in the article to counter the scandal information. As I said, it's good to present both sides of an issue, assuming that both sides can be reliably sourced. - TexasAndroid (talk) 21:34, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - Notability is a little hard to determine. While the subject is not nearly as notable as Bill Gates, he seems to have attracted a good deal of coverage from the Eastern media, but the Western media has yet to take notice. So I'd say he's at least generally notable. --Auric talk 20:24, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As I stated in my delete rationale above the notabilty is self-created. Do any of our policies on hoax articles cover hoax notabilty? I have seen hoax articles deleted even though they were covered by western media.--Canoe1967 (talk) 22:00, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think it relates to the other people affected by the hoax. Most of the hoax articles have at least one already notable person or hoaxer attached. If Bill Gates decides to take notice and sue, this could pop up again (probably as a mention on Gate's page) and he would become more notable. This article probably won't survive until then, though.--Auric talk 22:21, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Much as I enjoy seeing people who create puff pieces on themselves be hoisted by their own petards, the reality here is that what tenuous notability there is here is a clear violation of WP:BLP1E. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 22:46, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Bill Gates gives Shayan Anique Akhtar an island. We may have to delay the deletion.--Canoe1967 (talk) 01:42, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Where? Nothing about Shayan Anique Akhtar in the article, just Gates.--Auric talk 00:10, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge - I'm the editor who asked TexasAndroid to undelete the blanked article. I first tagged it for notability/autobio while doing WP:NPP. After a couple of hours with no further edits, I was thinking of prodding it on notability, so did a Google search and found plenty of coverage, as there was a bit of a controversy to it. Coverage was substantial from Pakistan, India and USA, but only for a week or two, so as FreeRangeFrog notes above, this fails WP:BLP1E for a separate article. Yet it's at least notable enough for a merge to another article, though I'm not sure which: Microsoft Certified Professional, List of hoaxes, other? Altered Walter (talk) 10:06, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Microsoft Certified Professional would be huge if we listed even the notable ones and List of hoaxes doesn't allow non-notable ones that use red links and don't have viable articles according to the discussions in the archives of the talk page. Basically wp is not news.--Canoe1967 (talk) 19:07, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but this is also not news: it's eight months old, so per WP:NOT#NEWS it's not journalism. As for size, well "too much information" is not a problem for Wikipedia, though WP:EVENT and WP:WEIGHT can be. I can find only three of these "youngest MCP" hoaxes online, and only two seem to have significant coverage. A short paragraph mentioning them in Microsoft Certified Professional is certainly appropriate, and would add only a modest droplet to that Mighty Bucket O' Product Marketing. Altered Walter (talk) 10:39, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 00:23, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 00:23, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 00:23, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - falls under WP:BLP1E. The person is clearly not notable. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 17:57, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:BLP1E, FreeRangeFrog perfectly sums up my opinion. J04n(talk page) 16:05, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Note that while my name is at the top as "submitter", it was mostly a technical submission on my part, and I did not express a strong Delete or Keep opinion there. I expressed a vague thought that notability might be at issue, but nothing more. That said, the BLP1E arguments have convinced me. The subject really does not have much, if any, lasting notability, and thus should not have an article here. So I am now moving firmly into the Delete camp on this one. - TexasAndroid (talk) 19:11, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is a text-book case where a young person committed a hoax that attracted attention for a very limited amount of time. On these grounds delete under WP:BLP1E and WP:CRIME. Mkdw ^talk 20:19, 30 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 g11. Author's userpage: "Think2exist is a creative organizational development consultant that is using wikipedia to launch his brand!" NawlinWiki (talk) 16:21, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Influssertiveness[edit]

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

I could not find any reference in google search. It is either a dictionary definition or a made up word. PlanetEditor (talk) 16:04, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as an unsourced neologism. Not a single hit on google apart from WP articleTheLongTone (talk) 16:17, 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. ·Add§hore· ^{Talk To Me!} 10:45, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Polar Nights[edit]

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

No assertion of notability per WP:NBOOK; I can find no evidence online that this e-book exists, even at the linked author page and publisher's page. Proposed deletion contested by article's creator in edit summary here. Altered Walter (talk) 15:54, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Altered Walter (talk) 15:55, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete No assertion of notability. Could be userfied. Mcewan (talk) 16:35, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete ISBN search reveals nothing, the books doesn't exist. The article on independent.co.uk is written by "simon hacker" but there is no mention of "polar nights". WP:TOOSOON or WP:HOAX. Alfy32 (talk) 17:07, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a non-notable book. הסרפד (call me Hasirpad) (formerly R——bo) 19:56, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - non-notable. Might be a hoax, but with the paucity of verification from reliable sources, who knows? Michaelzeng7 (talk) 22:19, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There is nothing to show that this book is going to exist other than this Wikipedia article, and I mean nothing. The most I can assume is that this something that is either self-published or is going to be going through a publishing house that's so small and unknown that it's almost like being self-published. (Some of the houses out there do have some standards and perform some editing, but ultimately sell the book through self-publishing venues such as CreateSpace or SmashWords.) Even if this book was being released through a known publisher and it was listed on their website, we'd still need coverage of this book in reliable sources, which doesn't exist right now. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 00:59, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The book indeed exists [28], but delete as non-notable and (given that the article has been created by a single-purpose account and the user's comment when removing the proposed deletion) probable self-promotion. - Mike Rosoft (talk) 06:13, 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. MBisanz ^talk 02:52, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Voodoo Highway Band[edit]

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

Non-notable band lacking ghits and Gnews of substance. Fails WP:MUSIC. reddogsix (talk) 15:23, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If the Voodoo Highway is a "Non-notable band lacking hits and news" then it's hard to tell if any hard rock band from Italy could fit this standards. It's over 20 years since any hard rock band from Italy emerges the way they did. This artist achieved many positive critics in their home country and abroad, together with a very welcoming reception from the public. I did not created their wiki page out of futile desire, but rather to enrich wiki's database for the benefit of users. I understand this article may be moved into Italian wiki. Thank you for reading this. Adriano Petrachi — Preceding unsigned comment added by Adriano Petrachi (talk • contribs) 15:55, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Page creator has a point. True this article needs review, clean-up and better edition. But complete deletion would not be in the interest of the general public. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.46.150.80 (talk) 17:16, 23 January 2013 (UTC) — 151.46.150.80 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

This article could remain on Wikipedia once corrected and issue settled. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.81.212.251 (talk) 17:31, 23 January 2013 (UTC) — 91.81.212.251 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

I checked all info and links on this article. They are all true. I don't undestand why it shoud be removed from wiki. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.62.187.34 (talk) 18:00, 23 January 2013 (UTC) — 195.62.187.34 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Delete. No indication of notability. The references list contains: 3 dead links, 3 press releases, 1 probable press release written as an article, 1 site that describes them as "a band to watch", 1 blog, and 1 site that doesn't mention the subject. Total: 1 borderline source. Howicus (talk) 18:34, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and Howicus. Unacceptable references, article apparently written by COI accounts. 99.136.252.89 (talk) 00:42, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This band may not reach notability criteria by a inch. They sport 1 musician on wiki (Alessandro Duo), 1 record label on wiki (rock n growl), and one producer on wiki(Axel Wiesenauer). I also could not find any dead ends on references, all weblinks seem to work.

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 00:46, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 00:46, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, WP:TOOSOON, at best. Cavarrone (talk) 19:23, 30 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 02:52, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Geoff Sizer[edit]

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

Non-notable individual lacking ghits and Gnews of substance. Article lacks references to support notability. Fails WP:BIO. reddogsix (talk) 15:15, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete as per WP:GNG Alfy32 (talk) 17:12, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment, we do not "speedy delete" anything per WP:GNG. Take a look at WP:CSD. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 07:05, 27 January 2013 (UTC).[reply]

Hello. I am in the process of adding content and references to this page. I am not sure how the assertion can be made that an individual is non-notable by someone who does not know the individual (albeit a bot that created the message?). I guess it is up to the page creator to present the content in such a manner that the notability of the subject is more obvious. Still, I find the the statement "non-notable" offensive given what I know about the subject, and what those in the Australian engineering fraternity know about this subject.

Over the course of the next day or so I will add more content to the page in order to demonstrate the groundbreaking technical work that Mr Sizer has undertaken, and also his work in the public engineering arena. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.240.208.163 (talk) 20:45, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Notability has a special meaning on Wikipedia (see WP:Notability), and saying somebody's non-notable shouldn't be taken as an insult, it just means they don't meet Wikipedia's particular requirements, which include the requirement that somebody must have coverage in published media (see WP:RS and WP:V). Please add any sources you know, and the article may still be kept. --Colapeninsula (talk) 21:20, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, thanks for the explanation. It seems difficult for even engineers of exceptional talent and principle to be noticed - we (I am an engineer also) tend to "fly under the radar", and do not self-promote, even when urged to do so, and so I urge you to consider this also. In the engineering community, we are talking about a person of real significant - and I hope we can seen others revealed in the process. I have added references to a number of inventions that Mr Sizer has been involved in. Let me know if any more material is required. Thanks. Whirly bits (talk) 21:53, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 00:50, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 00:50, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello - can we draw this deletion debate for this page to a conclusion either way please - it is hardly flattering for the subject of the page. Whirly bits (talk) 22:00, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Lacks coverage in independent reliable sources. duffbeerforme (talk) 09:43, 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. Stifle (talk) 19:30, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Che Arthur[edit]

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

Sorry, but I cannot find a single reliable source to prove that this person passes the guidelines of WP:GNG or WP:BAND. His claim to notability resides in having been a member of Atombombpocketknife, itself of questionable notability--and while he was a member, they didn't release anything on a notable label, as far as I can tell. Note the COI in the article history, and how typical the writing and the links are for such an article. Drmies (talk) 05:32, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am "this person" and I pass several of the guidelines. a google search reveals http://music.msn.com/music/artist/che-arthur/ http://www.allmusic.com/artist/che-arthur-mn0000773695 http://suicidegirls.com/interviews/2244/Che-Arthur/ http://www.avclub.com/artists/the-che-arthur-three,38271/ http://www.brooklynvegan.com/chicago/2012/01/scott_kelly_pla_1.html -- che — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chearthur (talk • contribs) 06:01, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. LadyofShalott 06:34, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Here are the big issues with the links you've given. The first two are just links to discography pages on MSN and AllMusic. They do show that you've put out albums independent of the band, but don't show notability in and of themselves. Of the albums you've released, none of them are with the same company and none of the companies are major record labels. So as far as criteria #5 goes for WP:MUSICBIO, you don't pass that one. Interviews are good, but the Brooklyn Vegan article wouldn't really be considered a reliable source even if it was a full article, which it isn't. The AV Club article is decent enough, but someone could argue that it's a listing on the AV Club website rather than an actual review of the band. It's very brief and while I'd count it as a review of the band, someone could also argue that it is a review of the band and not of you independently of this second band you've set up. Achieving notability for a single artist outside of the notability for a band is rather difficult. I'll see what I can find, but these sources aren't enough to show notability for you. I'd also like you to look over WP:COI, as you certainly have a conflict of interest here. It isn't against the rules for you to post and comment about yourself, but there's the definite problem that you'll likely view things as having more weight than they do and see more individual notability then there might otherwise be. I'm not saying that it's impossible for your article to be saved, just that you need to approach this with caution.Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 08:19, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep. There's some independent coverage out there, some of which could be classed as reliable sources. There's a short biography at Allmusic, alongside two reviews of his albums. There's also another album review at Popmatters. It's not much, but it think it just about scrapes the bar at WP:MUSICBIO when you also take into consideration the sources shown above. The COI issues remain, however. — sparklism ^hey! 08:55, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep per Sparklism. I did a cleanup of the article, removing anything that wasn't immediately verifiable via reliable sources. This decimated much of the article, but what remains now is relatively sourced by the available links. Now as far as his individual notability goes, there are some reviews out there. They're brief, but they're reviews. I've linked to the ones that Sparklism brought up as well as some others that I've pulled up myself. I also linked to a few interviews as well. I agree that Arthur just barely scrapes by when you consider the sources here and his link to Atombombpocketknife. The goal here is to show that he's notable outside of the band and the sources here show that although he didn't spin off into a Beyonce-esque solo career, he's notable enough to pass muster. I would recommend that Arthur goes through one of the WP:MUSIC members or another Wikipedia editor to do any major edits to the article to ensure neutrality and to avoid any big issues of COI.Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 09:13, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You should amend your earlier statement that the allmusic link is one of two "just links to discography pages". 86.44.21.11 (talk) 17:41, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No, the two links given earlier are just links to discography pages. The specific links in the article are links to the specific articles that have Rovi reviews. The two are very different things when it comes down to it. Providing links to discography pages merely shows that the albums exist.Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:58, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
http://www.allmusic.com/artist/che-arthur-mn0000773695 ... You do not see the bio by Stewart Mason on this page? 86.44.18.54 (talk) 00:43, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The difference here is that ultimately it's considered to be more of a trivial source since it's not really in-depth. It could be argued that the reviews would be trivial as well, but at this point there aren't many standards in place for reviews. Short reviews still count for the most part. When it comes to stuff like the bio page for an artist, that's when stuff like this becomes trivial or otherwise unusable for showing notability. It establishes that Arthur is a singer and that he's done things, but doesn't show notability in and of itself.Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 07:19, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sure you are quite wrong. The substantive detail (including biographical detail, descriptions of music and qualitative judgement) in the bio consitutes significant coverage & should be used in any good article on the subject. Your description of the link as a trivial listing - "just links to discography pages" - is an obvious mischaracterization. 86.44.19.216 (talk) 08:09, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Userify I don't see much left here I guess after the clean-up. But there's a few odds and ends to mention. Let me precurse by saying I worked many, many years as a record promoter for Warner Bros-Elektra/Asylum Entertainment and I'm just going to give an industry perspective. The A.V. Club is not a notable or reliable music industry publication - It's made by the Onion, had been a University publication, and has some serious credibility issues regarding retractions and validity of reviews. The Club is at best a mention source, and is not followed for any kind of validity. Allmusic is not a reliable music industry source, it's a mentions/listing. Splendid zine, Suicide Girls, Out Magazine, Morning Call, and Pop Matters are not notable industry magazines or otherwise. Basically, there is no listed mention in any notable publication sources tracked, followed, or considered by the music industry - the references are basically trivial/minor. There are no charted works at all listed - singles, albums, renditions charted by other performers, etc. There are no notable awards - Grammys, Choice, etc. The are no major rotations at media. There are no gold/platinum awards/certifications. There are no major or significant minor label releases. No major music competitions, or Idol-type wins, places, etc. No TV themes, major radio rotations, or national broadcast segments. No ensemble work of two or more independently notable musicians. Not the most prominent representative of a notable style or scene. Just being in a band or releasing a record is, in and of itself, not enough. Maybe another overhaul of the article could introduce something more notable, but from an industry perspective we are a couple cents short of a dollar here save for ambition. However, that does not preclude consideration when something major does happen, but it just is not apparent at this time. Яεñ99 (talk) 10:44, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I appreciate the insight you have given us, Ren99, but I don't think it's accurate to imply that "sources tracked, followed, or considered by the music industry" are the only ones that can help to establish notability and therefore meet our inclusion guidelines. While I absolutely agree that "just being in a band or releasing a record is...not enough", I think it's harsh to dismiss coverage from Allmusic, The A.V. Club and PopMatters as being "trivial/minor". — sparklism ^hey! 14:17, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Countless AFDs have shown that Ren's views of these sources are untypical. Indeed, it's hard to find a popular music FA bio that doesn't utilise allmusic bios & reviews (see Aaliyah · AC/DC · Alice in Chains · Audioslave · The Beatles · Big Star · Black Francis · Kate Bush · Mariah Carey · Celine Dion · Nick Drake · Bob Dylan ...) Similarly, popmatters, the a.v. club, Out [29], & the 100,000 circulation local The Morning Call [30] constitute significant coverage in RS. 86.44.21.11 (talk) 17:41, 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, MBisanz ^talk 02:44, 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, —Tom Morris (talk) 15:07, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Billboard is a reliable, respected music industry source. MusicRow is reliable and respected. Rolling Stone & The Village Voice are magazines that we call useful and are widely reviewed and published. Look for publications that are prominent in the industry & that carry the weight of a technical review done by persons proficient in publicity, promotion, and A&R - not a listing source like AllMusic. That's what counts. All the major bands listed above (The Beatles, Alice in Chains, Audioslave, Celine Dion, etc), are all feature artists with major publications/record releases/tours/awards/etc and active reviews of recognized material to a listening/publishing/recording/purchasing audience, not just relative to a listing agency. Make sure your are just debating the points/words, otherwise you are not making a valid argument :) There is nothing wrong with patience for now Яεñ99 (talk) 08:40, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment #2 User: 86.44.21.11 looks like a WP:Sockpuppet, as their entire contributions consist of this one topic with no other entries attributed and they have since deleted their account, yet they suppose in-depth knowledge of user postings - this act further illegitimizes and undermines their debate. Also, there is another single edit IP User: 86.44.18.54 that looks like a potential WP:Sockpuppet, has been deleted, and has no other contributions other than this article. And...User: 86.44.19.216 has also deleted their account after commenting here, and made only 1 other contribution of ~20 words on 5 June 2009 to the topic Contralto, and is yet another potential WP:Sockpuppet. Of note, User: Chearthur has also deleted their account, leaving a vapor trail in it's place and a concern for yet another WP:Sockpuppet specific to this one topic. Additionally, there is the unresolved WP:COI mentioned above circling this article that runs straight afoul of these other issues. Really, 4 deleted accounts, COI, potential Sockpuppets, and attitude - not to mention the shortfalls and user attacks? I'm probably not the only one to notice, but with all that going on this article needs to be *Deleted... If the closing admin finds the circumstances above as abusive, I might even suggest *SALT, but I'll leave that formality to other folks than me from here. Яεñ99 (talk) 09:23, 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. (non-admin closure) Michaelzeng7 (talk) 22:17, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Girl Talk (Album)[edit]

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

Article about an unreleased musical recording, lacks notability per WP:NALBUMS. The only actual reference is from a commercial web site where one can purchase the upcoming album. - Mr X 01:47, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The release date is only about six weeks away, and the album will surely chart and receive plenty of significant coverage by then. For now, though, coverage in reliable sources seems limited to "New album coming. Mission statement is 'what it's like to be a woman'. Listen to the single below." [31][32][33] I don't think that's really enough to warrant an individual article just yet, though I wouldn't mind a redirect if consensus goes that way. Gong show 04:19, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Incubate. As it is released in little over 6 weeks time, common sense should tell us that there will be plenty of coverage soon with details of the tracklisting, etc. While details are slightly thin on the ground at the moment, it has received quite wide coverage, e.g. [34], [35], [36], [37], [38], [39], [40], and then there's always this for background on the album's recording. --Michig (talk) 19:17, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 12:27, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 12:27, 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) 09:50, 23 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, —Tom Morris (talk) 15:06, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Incubate - Nothing anyone on this page said is criteria for deletion. This is especially true since its obvious this album will be notable and will just be recreated in less than two months. This album should or either stay up or more ideally be incubated until it comes out. Hope that clears everything up. Mrmoustache14 (talk) 23:24, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (changed from above). After further consideration, there's actually enough material in reliable sources to put together a reasonably detailed stub (ie, info from article's sources can be incorporated into a couple paragraphs of text), and the release date is imminent, so deletion does not seem like the ideal solution. Gong show 20:07, 30 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) 21:40, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

KIMO Industrie-Elektronik GmbH[edit]

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

Fails WP:ORG - I asked creator to find more sources but they haven't. Dougweller (talk) 14:28, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I get the impression the creator of this article may not be familiar with Wikipedia guidelines about creating articles. He has close connections with this company viz. http://www.alibaba.com/member/de112028362.html where his name is given as a contact person for placing orders for the company's products, and even some of the phraseology in this article is similar to that used there. He also refers to his long association with the company here: http://de.linkedin.com/pub/shrikanth-venkateshappa/19/738/673. I note, though, that this article was created only about a month ago and last updated by him on 14 January 2013. The company's sales representatives are this week attending the following event in India: http://www.kimo.de/index.php?file=messe/messe-2013_electrotec.html&lang=DE. However, I have been unable to find anything about the company or its notability on the German Wikipedia. As far as I have been able to ascertain, it is one more medium-sized German company, doing whatever it does.--Zananiri (talk) 20:55, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 00:55, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 00:55, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 00:55, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I have checked the German sources. Only trivial coverage of the subject by secondary sources, WP:CORP. On their German website, they self declare as mittelständisches Unternehmen (en: medium-sized businesses) [41]. The articles interwiki links are faked, as they link to List of companies of Germany on other wikis in fact. There is no arcticle about the company on any other wiki. The author is presumably in a WP:COI, as an employee (Business Development Manager South Asia bei KIMO Industrie-Elektronik GmbH).[42] --Ben Ben (talk) 18:29, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - In fact, regarding the interwiki links being faked, I note that the creator of this article himself added the name of this company, where he is an employee, to the list of German companies on the English Wiki on 14 December 2012, a day after creating this article. --Zananiri (talk) 19:50, 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. Mark Arsten (talk) 21:40, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

List of National Hockey League controversies[edit]

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

Ill defined article. What is and what isn't a controversy? WP:OR is also an issue. A similar baseball like list was deleted[43] some months back....William 14:00, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. ...William 14:00, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

~~Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. ...William 14:00, 23 January 2013 (UTC)~~[reply]

Delete per the majority of my rationale in the AfD for the baseball list: "This article is a hopeless and indiscriminate mishmash of unrelated events grouped by someone's POV idea of what constitutes a "controversy", therefore falling into the realm of original research by synthesis." Reso lute 14:17, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per Resolute. Or to quote the fan from the video clip of halftime at the Jets-Patriots Thanksgiving game: "Garbage ... garbage ... garbage ... garbage ..." Ravenswing 00:53, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 01:04, 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 redirect to Mortification (band). There's really nothing to merge, other than the tracklist; that can be merged from history (with attribution) if desired. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:48, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Noah Sat Down and Listened to the Mortification Live EP While Having a Coffee[edit]

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

Tagged for notability for 5 years; I couldn't prove notability Boleyn (talk) 21:13, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge. All we have here is a tracklist and that can be merged to Mortification (band). --Michig (talk) 21:22, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Michig - David Gerard (talk) 15:01, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Non-notable, and per creators request. No need to merge track-list to the band's main page, the EP is non-notable. – Jerry teps (talk) 08:12, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Grahame (talk) 00:43, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 12:27, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect it back to Mortification (band). It's not that likely a search term, but redirects are cheap. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 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) 10:05, 23 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 23. Snotbot t • c » 13:51, 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. Mark Arsten (talk) 21:41, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

SERP-Chem International Master Course[edit]

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

Article about a university course that has no independent sources and seems to lack notability. - Mr X 13:12, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:33, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:33, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:33, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Reply I have added an independent source, and I aim to add further sources. As for notability - the course is in the same class as various other Erasmus Mundus courses with existing Wikipedia articles, such as those listed in the category "Erasmus Mundus Programmes". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sp47 (talk • contribs) 22:47, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - not notable, fails WP:GNG. ukexpat (talk) 14:28, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails GNG. Courses are rarely notable (I can't even think of a single example). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 20:25, 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. Mark Arsten (talk) 21:41, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

UnBuyThat[edit]

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

Can't find any reliable, independent coverage of this site through the Google News Archive or a general search (probably because it only became active this month). The references given in the article consist entirely of press-releases, user-generated content, and a profile on a blog. Doesn't satisfy WP:CORP. Alexrexpvt (talk) 12:16, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Currently fails WP:CORP and WP:GNG. The existing sources aren't enough - AngelList and Yale aren't independent; Under30CEO doesn't have a proper editorial structure[44] hence failing WP:RS; the ECN article just has a sentence on the company; which leaves only CrunchBase. No results in Google News, and nothing obvious in Google search. It's only just gone live in NY so maybe it will become notable, but it's not there yet. --Colapeninsula (talk) 18:06, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 01:18, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 01:18, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 01:18, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now - I agree with Colapeninsula, the references listed are either brief mentions and the Under30CEO.com is a conflict of interest. Although partnering with Yale is interesting, the yale.edu team profile reads like an ordinary company website and would not be substantial. I didn't find anything through Google News searches either and a search at nytimes.com, nydailynews.com and yaledailynews.com provided nothing. It is probably too soon if it was launched only this month. I have no prejudice towards a future article if they become notable. SwisterTwister talk 03:25, 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 wrong forum. This was a redirect to Vishal Krishna that was also nominated for deletion to make way for a move of the target to this title. I declined that speedy deletion as there is no evidence of discussion, and moving the article away from their real name isn't always going be uncontroversial. Thryduulf (talk) 18:58, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Vishal (actor)[edit]

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

make may for move Kailash29792 (talk) 10:47, 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} 02:47, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Cardiff City F.C. strip[edit]

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

There is a real lack of meaningful content here and there is already a relevant section on the parent article – Cardiff City F.C.#Strips; there is no need for a separate article as the kit has no notability independent from the club. It's not covered in its own right in multiple independent sources. C 679 22:21, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. C 679 22:22, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as a break-out from the main article (delete the duplicate content in the main article). You could merge back the additional content here, but the main article is quite long. --Colapeninsula (talk) 00:45, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - everything here is already in the main club article (in fact the vast majority is a word-for-word duplicate), and I see no need for the content to be in two places at the same time. The main article is not excessively long -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:44, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per consensus in this recent AfD. Giant Snowman 10:13, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Yep it does appear to be all copied from the main article, there is no need for duplicate information. Govvy (talk) 13:36, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I do not find the keep argument convincing in that the strip information is not seemingly notable to warrant such a detailed section or even a sub-article. This stance is supported by the fact that the strip does not seem to be on the radar of any independent publications and perhaps enter the domain of trivial information. Mkdw ^talk 07:12, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 15:11, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wales-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 15:11, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Cardiff City F.C. - even though the answer is not the same for every "Foo F.C. strip" articles, this one should be deleted as there is no reason to split it from the Cardiff City F.C., and this article should be redirected to parent article. Mentoz86 (talk) 14:25, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
REdirect to Cardiff City F.C.#Strips. That is the proper place for it to be covered. This FORK is completely unnecessary. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:50, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't really think a redirect is particularly useful here considering the unlikeness of the redirect name. Readers will invariable search the main article name opposed to main article name + article of clothing. Mkdw ^talk 19:06, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, a redirect doesn't seem to be worthwhile. C 679 09:21, 23 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) 10:06, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect - Cardiff City F.C. strip is a perfectly plausible search term, IMO, but the content should not be in two places at once. – Pee Jay 11:52, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think with out a link it's extremely unlikely. It would be as likely as any of the other sections in the article including 'Shirt badges' and 'Numbers'. Mkdw ^talk 06:57, 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 Looking After Our Own. A merge looks like the close that will satisfy most participants, most of the time. Content can also be merged into other articles, such as the character list, as needed. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 15:22, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Helen Flynn[edit]

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

A character from the television series Spooks that was featured in only one episode (she appeared in one other in passing). Her death scene in the episode was controversial, but this controversy is already covered in the article for the episode. The character seems to have no notability independent of this episode. Khazar2 (talk) 03:25, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 22:07, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 22:07, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as coverage appears sufficient, but I wouldn't object to a merge to the character list, either. Jclemens (talk) 20:55, 22 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, -- Cheers, Riley 00:14, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to the article on the episode, Looking After Our Own. This article more or less duplicates the content from the episode's article. Also, info on controversy relating to a specific episode belongs in the article on the show/episode, not the character. --Colapeninsula (talk) 17:23, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per Jclemens ("coverage appears sufficient, but I wouldn't object to a merge to the character list, either".) Perhaps summarize death controversy, as main article is the place for the expanded detail of that "viewer reaction" aspect. Jmg38 (talk) 07:22, 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, WikiPuppies _bark ^dig 23:04, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Looking After Our Own per Colapeninsula, coverage is more about the episode than the character itself. Episode article is solid and there is no need to duplicate content in a character entry.Folken de Fanel (talk) 02:35, 6 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] 05:52, 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!} 15:53, 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) 10:02, 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 Kalusha Bwalya. (non-admin closure) TBr and ley ^{(what's up)} 06:43, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Kalusha Foundation[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) 13:30, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 16:23, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 16:23, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 16:23, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 16:23, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Kalusha Bwalya, no evidence of independent notability. Giant Snowman 16:51, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect would seem a reasonable course of action since it is relevant to another notable article per GS. C 679 22:13, 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) 09:58, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect - per the above. No indication of independent notability, but it is a plausible search term. Sir Sputnik (talk) 17:13, 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 WP:WITHDRAWN . (non-admin closure) ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 15:49, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Toby Johnson[edit]

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

unref coi blp; tagged for notability for 5 years Boleyn (talk) 13:12, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment does being a Lambda Literary Award winner help establish notability? See List of Lambda Literary Award winners. --Colapeninsula (talk) 15:32, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Lambda is a significant LGBT award. Arguable if enough on its own, but combined with the other sources (book reviews and bio-profile) all contributes to notability. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 17:29, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 16:06, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spirituality-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 16:06, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 16:06, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 16:06, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep sources added by Colapeninsula pass GNG. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 17:25, 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) 09:57, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and clean up. Plenty of sources available. Insomesia (talk) 12:11, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination withdrawn no longer unref blp. Thanks for all the hard work. Boleyn (talk) 12:17, 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 merge to Hopkins, Minnesota. (non-admin closure) TBr and ley ^{(what's up)} 02:22, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hopkins Raspberry Festival[edit]

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

Tagged for notability for 5 years. Seems non-notable - possibility of merge to Hopkins, Minnesota. Boleyn (talk) 09:41, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 13:48, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 13:48, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Minnesota-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 13:48, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge the festival information to Hopkins, Minnesota and delete the list of queens. A lot of cities have civic festivals in the summer months, but only a few, like the Minneapolis Aquatennial or the Saint Paul Winter Carnival, are really notable enough for Wikipedia articles. --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 01:43, 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, Mediran (t • c) 09:54, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge tp Hopkins, Minnesota. JayJay^{What did I do?} 17:41, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Hopkins, Minnesota, much per Elkman. Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 08:25, 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. J04n(talk page) 16:17, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

List of TriMet bus routes[edit]

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

Wikipedia is not a travel guide. This article is almost entirely unsourced and the only source cited is the bus company's official web site. This list is unlikely to ever be useful to anyone planning to take a bus in Portland because they would have to check the bus company's web site anyway, to find out whether the route still exists, where to catch the bus, and when it runs. I recommend deletion. Metropolitan90 (talk) 05:55, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Transwiki to Wikivoyage where there is no requirement to be encyclopaedic, or notable and scope is on useful travel information. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 07:54, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete-All of this can be found on tri-met's website. PortlandOregon97217 (talk) 09:12, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. No evidence of notability.--Charles (talk) 14:08, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki per Stuart.Jamieson. --TKK ^{bark !} 22:09, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 13:13, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 13:13, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oregon-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 13:13, 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) 09:54, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I've transwikied this article to Wikivoyage. Check it out at List of TriMet bus routes. Northamerica1000^(talk) 10:21, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

that's not a transwiki, you've cut and paste copied without taking the editing history (a proper transwiki takes the whole editing history across)the result is that your new article is a copyright violation and will have to be fixed or deleted. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 13:28, 23 January 2013 (UTC).[reply]

delete per WP:NOT - this list is outside the scope of what an encyclopedia would be expected to do, and as others have said, the lack of any kind of guarantee that the page is up to date makes it pretty useless to the reader. I wouldn't worry too much about copy-pasting to WV, as it's just a collection of facts, and therefore I don't think there's anything covered by copyright in the page. -Pete (talk) 14:34, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
delete per Pete and others. The section on current routes adds nothing to the info. on TriMet's own page except wikilinks, and the latter are of dubious value here. I've edited this list several times, but my edits were mainly just to fix major errors (mostly resulting from service changes or mistakes by other editors), and from the day the article was created I felt it was, as Pete wrote above, outside the scope of what an encyclopedia would be expected to do, and simply duplicates info. on TriMet's site that will be kept up-to-date much better there than here. The section named "All-time route history" (previously named Former routes) has numerous problems, some of which I noted two years ago on this article's talk page and others on the TriMet article's talk page (9-9-2012 post). None of the sourcing problems with that section has ever been addressed, and that does not surprise me, because I believe it's not possible to fix them without disregarding WP:V and WP:RS. That section was originally added it to the TriMet article, and I moved it to this article only to avoid continuing an argument with its creator over deleting it, but I've always felt it should be deleted without replacement. SJ Morg (talk) 15:07, 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. There were quite a few sources presented, but the concerns raised over their local scope make me hesitate to close this as an out-and-out keep. So, I'm closing as no consensus, defaulting to keep. Feel free to renominate in a few months' time if deletion is still desired. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 15:35, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

European Kindred[edit]

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

Non-notable group. Even among WNist groups, this one is little known. Ilekg (talk) 23:42, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Stupid racist smeg. The whoe (talk) 03:53, 27 December 2012 (UTC)— The whoe (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

WP:IDONTLIKEIT, WP:NOTCENSORED. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:21, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 18:42, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oregon-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 18:42, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 18:42, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete - A search on Google news shows some sustained coverage over the years, but it is all from Portland area media. Going by WP:CLUB, this organisation's scope seems to be local to the Portland area failing to meet point 1 ("their activities is national or international in scale"). -- Whpq (talk) 18:57, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You saw the FBI press release. The FBI is Federal. These guys have attracted national attention in a bad way. Here is further proof to substantiate this. If you are Interstate then the Feds are involved. So it definitely is National. Here is also a link to the Anti Defamation League asserting that the group in question drove into washington and dumped a body into a ravine. Passes GNG as well. The have 2 different FBI press releases mind you PortlandOregon97217 (talk) 10:08, 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, Courcelles 00:01, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

KeepI'd say keep, some coverage of this supremacist gang here "DRUG SUSPECTS ARRAIGNED ON METH, COCAINE, HEROIN, WEAPONS CHARGES" 18 May 2010 US Fed News and here "European Kindred founder indicted in Oregon" 7 August 2008 Associated Press Newswires APRS. Quite a few other articles as well.Deathlibrarian (talk) 23:38, 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, Mediran (t • c) 10:48, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep- I knew I had heard this name before. It's a notorious white supremacist gang. More sources to come. ok. They are here, here (dont scoff at WW. They have pultizer prizes to its name) here PortlandOregon97217 (talk) 00:46, 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, Mediran (t • c) 05:34, 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, Mediran (t • c) 09:53, 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. Can be recreated or undeleted when there's a little bit more solidity about the album. —Tom Morris (talk) 15:29, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Daley's debut studio album[edit]

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

Mostly per WP:HAMMER. Only information about what happened before the album, a list of "confirmed" tracks; e.g. this could fit better on his biographical article. — Ṟ Ṉ 04:10, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This is basically a copy of the Daley article with some tracks listed at the end. There's very little here about the album. --Michig (talk) 07:05, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The album's title has now be confirmed, with the tracklist and artwork due to be released in a few days' time. There is plenty of information in the article about the album. --IWannaABillionaire (talk) 07:37, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- What the source says: "The singer revealed the name of his first LP as Days and Nights; but suggested he could change it before its release later this year." So, he can change the name anytime soon; also, the text says later this year, which usually means Fall '13. — Ṟ Ṉ 22:20, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete! WP:HAMMER — Statυs (talk, contribs) 11:52, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 02:49, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 02:49, 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, Mediran (t • c) 05:30, 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, Mediran (t • c) 09:52, 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. InShaneee (talk) 12:52, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Eduardo Paulino[edit]

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

Non notable minor league baseball player. Page created by his representatives or management company, a definite conflict of interest. Can't find significant sources online... He has recently been playing in the Mexican Leagues but it remains unclear if those satisfy the requirements of baseball notability. Spanneraol (talk) 02:11, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. Spanneraol (talk) 02:12, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 02:37, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Caribbean-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 02:37, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There's nothing "unclear" about whether or not the Mexican League counts. It does. It's the top-level league in Mexico, and it was explicitly recognized as a league that counted during the writing of the guideline. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 14:48, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails notability guidlines. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 21:42, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete article of a player of dubious quality created by an SPA and commercial spammer Ohconfucius ^{ping / poke} 04:06, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Mexican League isn't fully professional. Secret ^account 01:52, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What makes you say that? -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 22:43, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Non-notable minor league baseball player. Not entitled to presumption of notability per WP:NBASEBALL because subject never played in a regular season Major League Baseball game. Fails to satisfy the general notability guidelines per WP:GNG with substantial coverage in multiple, independent, reliable sources. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 11:14, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Did you actually read WP:BASE/N? Specifically, section 2? The Mexican League is the top-level league in Mexico. Participation in MLB isn't necessary, since this is an encyclopedia for the entire world, not just the USA. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 22:43, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, thank you, and I quote it often, but I don't subscribe to your very liberal interpretation. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 23:17, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a "liberal interpretation". It's what the guideline says. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 19:32, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've already reviewed the WP:NBASEBALL talk page archives. There has never been a consensus that the Mexican league players should be entitled to a presumption of notability per WP:NBASEBALL, as stated by the nominator. You, among several others, have argued for such inclusion, but there has never been an express consensus to do so. Until there is, Mexican league players must satisfy the general notability guidelines per WP:GNG for inclusion. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 03:35, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Where would be the sense in writing a notability guideline that covers all major non-US leagues except the second-largest and most successful (behind only NPB)? Stop and think for a second... -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 18:37, 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, —Tom Morris (talk) 13:17, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:BASE/N as above. PianoDan (talk) 13:32, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I suggest Hit bull, win steak read WP:BASE/N #6, which clearly provides a basis for establishing notability of minor league players. I don't see any evidence where he would meet WP:GNG either. Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 15:13, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That would be a great argument if teams in the LMB were affiliated with MLB clubs - but they aren't. In fact, LMB teams are autonomous, and they have their own minor league affiliates. That's the whole reason for the "top-level national league" language in the guideline - to separate players in the LMB (who are covered by the guideline) from players in the Liga Norte de Mexico, Liga de Béisbol del Noroeste de México, and Mexican Academy League (who are not). -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 18:37, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but if you read the article Mexican League it clearly states it is part of Minor League Baseball. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 22:06, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't say it wasn't "part of minor league baseball". I said that it wasn't affiliated - which it isn't. All minor league clubs EXCEPT those in the Mexican League (and their minor leagues) are affiliated with individual MLB teams, and those MLB parent clubs determine the hiring and firing of field staff, the acquisition or discharge of players, the distribution of playing time, etc. for all of their affiliates. Mexican League clubs are not affiliated with MLB clubs, so they do all of those things themselves. They operate completely independently and in parallel to the rest of organized baseball. If MLB teams want to acquire players from a Mexican League club, they have to arrange that with the club on a case-by-case basis, and the Mexican League club isn't required to go along with the deal if they don't think that it is to their advantage. Their connection to the entire rest of "minor league baseball" is nominal at best, and is a legacy of the specific language of the player transfer agreement worked out between the Mexican League and MLB in the 1950s. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 19:58, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Again, the sourced article Mexican League states that the said league is part of MiLB. You have provided no reliable, verifiable sources that back up your statements. The article does to support mine. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 22:04, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Again, I never said that the Mexican League wasn't part of organized baseball. I said that its connection to organized baseball is essentially nominal and its position within organized baseball is substantially different from that of every other league, due to the fact that its clubs are autonomous rather than affiliated with major league teams, and the fact that it is the top-level league in its country while the other leagues in organized baseball are not. The second sentence in the Mexican League article to which you linked says, and I quote, "Unlike the other two Triple-A circuits, the International League and the Pacific Coast League, Mexican League teams are not affiliated with Major League teams." Did you actually read the article to which you were linking? This is easily confirmed externally as well - see, for example, this FAQ on the official site of Minor League Baseball, which says, "though the Mexican League is part of Minor League Baseball and the National Association of Professional Baseball Leagues, its teams and players are not directly affiliated with Major League organizations". If you would like a good summary of the history of the Mexican League and its affiliation with MLB, and the reason that things developed in the way in which they did, The Rise of the Latin American Baseball Leagues, 1947-1961: Cuba, the Dominican Republic, Mexico, Nicaragua, Panama, Puerto Rico, and Venezuela by Lou Hernández (McFarland, 2011, ISBN 0786463848) has a reasonably clear and thorough summary of Anuar Canavati's negotiations with MLB at the beginning of their relationship. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 17:10, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That still doesn't solve the WP:GNG problem. There are any sources on him. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 00:25, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Though I disagree with the rule, the Mexican League technically is the top level of baseball in Mexico, and per WP:BASE/N: "Baseball figures are presumed notable if they...Have appeared in at least one game in...any other top-level national league." I personally think the rule should be changed for the LMB, since MLB recognizes it as a minor league, but as the rule stands, he's notable. Alex (talk) 20:56, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I Think the difference is in the interpretation of what constitutes "top level". Spanneraol (talk) 03:46, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If the Mexican League is not the top level of professional baseball within Mexico, then what is? -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 17:12, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Criteria #2 of WP:NBASEBALL states: "Have appeared in at least one game in any one of the following active major leagues: Major League Baseball, Nippon Professional Baseball, Korea Baseball Organization, Chinese Professional Baseball League or any other top-level national league." First of all, the Mexican league is not a "major league." Second, the Mexican league may be the highest level of baseball in Mexico, but it is not a "top-level" league comparable to the examples provided: "Major League Baseball, Nippon Professional Baseball, Korea Baseball Organization, [or] Chinese Professional Baseball League." We have now reached the point where several editors are advocating that players who have played one game in the Italian baseball league should be presumed notable. Hey, why not the Turkish league? Or the German league? The Venezuelan winter league? There is no consensus to extend the presumption to these other national leagues, and anyone who has read the WP:NSPORTS talk page archives knows that. It was specifically discussed, and no consensus was reached. In short, these leagues are not at the "top level" of the sport and the amount of of in-depth coverage of their players does not justify a presumption that most of them would pass a WP:GNG analysis. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 17:34, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You are confusing Major Leagues (with a capital "M") with "major leagues" (in the sense that of all the leagues, these are the primary and notable ones). Furthermore, the level of competition in the Mexican League is much, much higher than in the Chinese Professional Baseball League (i.e. the national baseball league of Taiwan) - there is no rational standard which would exclude the former and include the latter. As far as league quality is concerned, the Mexican League is at worst the fourth-strongest national league in the entire world, behind only MLB, NPB (i.e. Japan) and Serie Nacional (i.e. Cuba). I'm not sure what you are intending to prove by your hypothetical cases. Turkey, for example, does not have a national professional league at all, and it seems pointless to speculate about how one would be treated were it to come into existence... -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 18:37, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

HBWS, you can argue this until you are blue in the face, but the "legislative history" of WP:NBASEBALL does not support the inclusion of the Mexican league. You personally argued this point in WP:NBASEBALL talk page discussions and no consensus was reached in favor of your position. I suggest that you re-read your own comments and those in opposition to yours in the talk page archives. As for me, I see no reason to repeat myself. The position of the opposed !votes in this AfD are perfectly clear; they just disagree with your position. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 19:17, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with your contention that no consensus was reached in those discussions, and a consensus that recognized inherent notability for the CPBL but rejected it for the Mexican League would be totally laughable and functionally unworkable. Seriously, try to come up with a rationale behind that position that would make any sense at all. I dare you. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 21:07, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sigh, the league level of play decreased so much recently that it doesn't technically meet our guidelines anymore. Mexican League is a very tricky subject. Those who played in the 1940s and 1950s should be included, as it was fully professional and in the same level as the old Cuban League which is listed under our notability guidelines if the player passes WP:GNG as well and not some one gamer whose only source is a boxscore. The discussion whether to include current Mexican League players, or just from the glory era belongs in notability guideline talk page and not here. Secret ^account 04:32, 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, MBisanz ^talk 02:43, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed the last "relisted debate" notice as inappropriate and unnecessary. There is a clear 7–2 consensus to delete this article, and no new comments have been added since January 11, 2013 (twelve days). I questioned the previous relisting on January 16, but gave MBisanz's explanation the benefit of the doubt. Based on the clear existing consensus and the failure of anyone to comment for the last 12 days, it is clear that further extensions of this discussion are not appropriate and not necessary. I also question whether relistings of AfD discussion by non-administrators under circumstances such as these is appropriate generally. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 10:51, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
REQUEST IMMEDIATE CLOSE by any uninvolved administrator per my comment immediately above. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 10:51, 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. -- Ed (Edgar181) 12:50, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Kaser Mehmood[edit]

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

Reasonably disguised promotional article. I think every source is either unreliable or otherwise just has a passing mention of the subject. Seems to be a lot of web hits on the subject, but again I think it's all promotional. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 16:58, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 04:38, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 04:38, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- Does not seem to have acheived much of note. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:47, 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, Courcelles 00:21, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - While this page has all the hallmarks of one of those promotional articles that PR companies write for paying non-notable clients, this picture (subject shaking hands with Bill Clinton) prevents me from simply voting delete on grounds of notability :-) I'll try to look into it some more. ~Adjwilley (talk) 04:27, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I still say delete. NN as yet. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:08, 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) 09:49, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It has come to my attention that the article creator is here simply as a paid editor to create promotional articles for non-notable subjects. This subject of this article fails the GNG. [45] Ridernyc (talk) 09:48, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No significant notability; while the subject has apparently been involved with a number of notable people and places, notability is not thereby gained. --Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 09:57, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
DeleteNo significant covrage, fails notability.TheLongTone (talk) 11:29, 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 List of The X Factor finalists (Australia season 4)#What About Tonight. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 10:34, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What About Tonight (band)[edit]

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

At present, article fails WP:BAND to start with, amongst other notability criteria. A group that appeared once on a Reality television talent show, and then disappeared into obscurity, at least for now. My best wishes to these talented musicians, but it's currently Wikipedia:Too soon for this article. Shirt58 (talk) 09:19, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No music actually released, and they didn't even win the reality show. InShaneee (talk) 09:42, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/Redirect per Michig. Good catch! InShaneee (talk) 04:52, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/Redirect to List of The X Factor finalists (Australia season 4)#What About Tonight, where the group are already covered. There's really nothing more here other than unsourced rumour about a future release, but there is a source that could be added there. --Michig (talk) 20:51, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator comment: that redirect would be fine by me, a "win-win" outcome. Thank you for suggesting it, Michig, and thank you for reminding me that after 6+ years here, I still have much to learn.--Shirt58 (talk) 09:08, 24 January 2013 (UTC)--Shirt58 (talk) 09:08, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Grahame (talk) 23:19, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 02:28, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/redir per Michig, to maximise usefulness - David Gerard (talk) 12:56, 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. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 10:34, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

NETCO[edit]

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

Notability not established in the past 6 years of debate TheAMmollusc (talk) 07:50, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:COMPANY.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 15:32, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Brief stub about a title insurance company, referenced to internal sources and a directory. No claim is made that this business did anything to get into an encyclopedia. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 17:00, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 01:29, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 01:29, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now - Despite performing multiple detailed searches through Google News and Books, I haven't found anything sufficient aside from this news article which appears to briefly mention them and this directory which I actually found through a previous search but disregarded it until now. I also found this lawsuit from 2001 in which the plaintiff alleged the company "intefered with Plaintiffs' employment contract" and "engaged in abuse of process". Hoping to find other sources about this, I performed another search and found these results including one from Ohio (supremecourt.ohio.gov), where the lawsuit was filed. I will say, though, that the lawsuit gives quite a bit of detail but I haven't found any evidence of news coverage and that one court case is not sufficient for this article. SwisterTwister talk 19:37, 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.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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} 10:36, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Harry Dunn[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Please see the deletion review which closed as relist. The story is that this was deleted at AFD and recreated and then deleted under G4. The relist is to consider the new sources. As the DRV closer I am listing this as a procedural matter and offer no opinion on the outcome. Spartaz ^Humbug! 07:12, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. C 679 09:25, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG (due to lack of significant coverage - all of the sources are run-of-the-mill stories in local papers which do not cover the subject in any great detail) and also WP:NFOOTBALL (has not played or managed in a fully-professional league. Giant Snowman 09:41, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – I have to say that the Independent is a reliable national newspaper, meets significant coverage as you can see with my comment below and clearly independent of the subject, therefore appearing to meet WP:GNG. C 679 23:05, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - He still has not played or managed in a fully pro league, and, more importantly, the sources added are routine sports journalism, meaning the article still fails WP:NSPORT and WP:GNG. Sir Sputnik (talk) 12:27, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, if deleted, please move the disambiguation page Harry Dunn (disambiguation) to the then-vacant base name and update the incoming links. (Also, the GNG does not require most of the sources to be anything, nor does it disregard local sources; the topic needs significant coverage in independent sources.) -- JHunterJ (talk) 12:28, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I've amended my wording slightly; they are WP:ROUTINE stories of the 'non-league manager loses job, end of story' variety. Giant Snowman 12:32, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Your claim is still about "most" of the sources. If there are few-but-sufficient sources to meet GNG, then it doesn't matter if there are a hundred more that wouldn't meet GNG on their own. Are there some of the sources you don't have access to? -- JHunterJ (talk) 12:38, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
OK then, let's try a different route - which sources do cover the subject in significant detail, and aren't just about him losing/gaining a job? Those kind of stories are ten-a-penny in football. Giant Snowman 12:40, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think you meant to change to "all" instead of "none" above, but that will be false, since the Times and Independent are not local papers. Citations 1 & 2 are not about losing/gaining a job. -- — Preceding unsigned comment added by JHunterJ (talk • contribs)
Bah, having one of those days. But I'll repeat - which of these articles cover the subject in significant detail? Giant Snowman 13:10, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
All of the sources I added (including non-local sources) address the subject directly in detail, so no original research was needed to extract the content, per the GNG. -- JHunterJ (talk) 13:50, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I never said you used original research. If the "great detail" of the news pieces you have found has only been able to produce what is in the article then I have even less confidence in before in this passing GNG. Giant Snowman 13:59, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I was just restating the GNG criterion. I did not mean to imply I was defending myself against an accusation of OR. "Great detail" is not in the GNG. -- JHunterJ (talk) 13:02, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"Significant coverage" surely implies enough sufficient detail? Giant Snowman 13:12, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
And they give sufficient detail for the information cited in the article to be included without OR. Being a cited stub is not a reason for deletion. If there is no great detail in the sources, there's no great detail in the article. -- JHunterJ (talk) 14:36, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
We could create hundreds and thousands of articles on non-notable players/managers based on the news reports which say 'John Smith joined X in December 2003', 'John Smith joined Y in November 2006' etc. - that does bot count as "significant" coverage. Giant Snowman 14:49, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This has more than that. -- JHunterJ (talk) 16:46, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Question I can't actually get to the articles that have been added--they appear to be behind a pay wall. I assume those !voting above have access to the articles (as they comment on the articles' contents). Could they or someone else summarize their content and quote what (apparently highly limited) coverage there is on this subject in them? If too long, consider using the talk page of this AFD. Thanks, Hobit (talk) 17:50, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I can only see the sources with direct links. Without access to the others, and based on the titles of the articles combined with knowledge of sport's journalism from my 7 years of editing (almost exclusively) football on Wikipedia, it is hard to see any notability. GiantSnowman 17:55, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - I have added URLs for two of the other sources, neither of which cover this subject in depth at all..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:05, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    - Also, I've got a Times subscription at work so can get hold of the text of that one tomorrow and put it on the talk page as suggsted..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:13, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      - Thanks for both! I look forward to seeing what you come up with. Watch out for copyright violations, so try to stick with just the relevant part rather than the whole articles... Hobit (talk) 20:49, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        Here is the first link, relevant part only...
        
        "Dunn provided the managerial inspiration behind that Wembley win. Though he has endured a disappointing time of late, the County Durham man is held in high regard at the Turnbull Ground - and, indeed, beyond. "Harry's done a brilliant job," Graham Manser, the Whitby chairman, said. "We were in a shocking state when he came in 1996. The pylons had come down in a horrible north-easterly gale and we faced relegation to the second division of the Northern League. Since then we've had two promotions, we've been to Wembley, and now we're in the first round of the FA Cup against Plymouth with the whole town buzzing. Yes, Harry's done a tremendous job for us."
        
        "He's done it while holding down a day job, too. Dunn works as a maintenance assistant at Sedgefield Community Hospital - which is presumably where Tony Blair would be taken for treatment if he ever fell ill within his local consituency. He was a brilliant midfielder in his playing days - Dunn, that is - a linchpin of the fine Scarborough non-League side of the 1970s. He played in the FA Trophywinning teams of 1976 and 1977 and also tasted victory against League opposition in the FA Cup."
        
        "Indeed, Dunn scored in a 3-2 win against Preston that earned Scarborough a third-round tie at home to Crystal Palace in the 1975- 76 season. "That was the Cup run of Malcolm Allison and his fedora," he recalled. "They beat us 2-1." Palace - Allison, fedora, Peter Taylor, Alan Whittle and all - went on to reach the semi-finals, losing 2-0 to Lawrie McMenemy's Southampton at Stamford Bridge. Dunn went on to reach the third round with Scarborough two years later, losing 3-0 at Brighton after beating Rochdale 4-2 and Crewe 2-0."
        
        "Whitby's manager has aged a little since those days..."
        C 679 22:52, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      Apparently with the level of Times subscription we have at work I can only go back as far as 2000, so no dice on that one I'm afraid..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:11, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      Sources do not have to be online to be citeable, or to be used for GNG. That said, from the Times article: "Called in last week to retrieve the club's parlous position, Phil Staley, who left Accrington Stanley in October, and Harry Dunn, the long-serving manager who parted company with Bishop Auckland this season, have reconstructed the playing staff." -- JHunterJ (talk) 13:02, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete I am going to say delete, unless you can get better sources for GNG I still say it fails. Govvy (talk) 00:09, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Could you explain why you feel this way? Is the source trivial? Something else wrong with it?

Keep I don't know who asked this question above, but when I cast that delete vote there wasn't that many citations on the page. Since then someone has added 8 additional citations which pushes the article over the WP:GNG for a pass now. Govvy (talk) 19:26, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - would this not pass as significant detail from a reliable source?--Egghead06 (talk) 08:22, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I'd say it clearly meets the GNG. Hobit (talk) 16:39, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – some of the comments arguing a failure of WP:GNG are laughable. The individual in question has been the subject of detailed news reports in national newspapers such as The Independent which undeniably qualify as reliable sources. The reason for the coverage is no doubt due to this man's longevity in non-league football, for which he is clearly considered by such sources to be newsworthy. Admittedly some of the sources are routine coverage, but notability is WP:NOTTEMPORARY. I would summarise that this is a classic tale of WP:HEY, where a number of editors have cooperated to justify this inclusion on Wikipedia since its deletion in the last AfD three weeks ago, when he was deleted for failing GNG. I finish with the assertion that this can no longer be considered the case. C 679 15:25, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep At least one source ~~one~~ two sources (pasted above and linked above) have significant coverage of this person. We've met the WP:GNG with multiple non-trivial sources. And even if the rest are more run-of-the-mill and less biographical I think we're still above the bar of the GNG. Hobit (talk) 16:35, 24 January 2013 (UTC) some edits made noting the second source found by Egghead that I'd missed.[reply]
Keep, I believe it meets GNG with the sources I added and the changes since. -- JHunterJ (talk) 16:47, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment the article looks much better now and I am swaying towards GNG, however how sure are we the sources have not confused the two 'Harry Dunns' which played at Scarborough at the same time? After all, the article claims that the other Dunn was twice Scarborough's Player of the Year - yet ((Scarborough F.C. Player of the Year)) indicates otherwise... Giant Snowman 16:53, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 01:34, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 01:34, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 01:34, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Enough here now to pass WP:GNG.--Egghead06 (talk) 09:09, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Keep the article. It in my opinion passes WP:GNG. It has more information than does many of wikipedia's articles and it keeps links from turning red. This article is a start class article and not a stub. Also others may want to add pieces to this article later. Thechristiancontender (talk) 13:17, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- I do not normally comment on Football, but his whole career has been a long way down the football hierarchy. I ma very dubious whehter we need an article on some one involved at this level. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:37, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I've added free-to-access links for some of the references, removed the Scarborough Player of the Year template, and delinked the Dunn that appears thereon. No doubt understandable confusion on the part of the template's creator, but this Dunn didn't join the club until 1975, so is unlikely to have been their PotY in 1970 and 1974. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 16:15, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is a nice, although brief, article on an encyclopedic topic. As it happens WP:GNG is met with at least three qualifying articles about the "right" Harry Dunn (manager of Whitby Town).[46][47][48] Thincat (talk) 14:41, 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. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 10:36, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

List of cats in the Tribe of Rushing Water and Ancient cats (Warriors)[edit]

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

An excessive level of detail and it appears to be original research. As an aside, since it can be fixed by editing, the article does not meet the MOS standards. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 05:15, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:26, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:26, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:26, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Unneeded level of detail. --Harizotoh9 (talk) 20:14, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete' - I know that we shouldn't say, "cruft", but I have to call a spade a spade. This is as obscure and non-notable a list as could be imagined. Just be be sure, I searched online, and found nothing reliable - merely WP mirrors and discussion boards. Bearian (talk) 23:32, 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 Owl City. (non-admin closure) TBr and ley ^{(what's up)} 02:34, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel Jorgensen (musician)[edit]

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

Not a notable musician, in a nutshell. I had redirected the page to Owl City, but the article, such as it was, was restored. Note that there's nothing but YouTube and MySpace and such among the references. I searched earlier today and found nothing at all on the internets. Also, no label, no record deal, no nothing. Drmies (talk) 22:43, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Drmies Daniel hasnt got a Record Deal,no label because he's an unsigned artist.Ive been a fan for 4 years and many times ive been asked "who's daniel jorgensen" and for fans who know do know who he is,this can get a bit annoying.Our solution was to make a wiki page to make him more notable among Owl City fans.He is currently a member of the Owl City live band and has been since 2009. Watchers3 (talk) 10:38, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This page shouldn't be deleted. Because fans of Owl City, like me, want to find out more about the live band. It doesn't matter if he doesn't have a label, he's an up and coming artist. He is also releasing a brand new album soon, under one of his solo projects: Carinthia. There is much more to him than just being a member of Owl City, and I am sure in the future he will become more popular. So, that's why I'm asking you, Drmies to not delete this page. I hope you will consider this, sincerely, HeroOfWiki (talk) 10:59, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Drmies, Not all of these people who ask are friends, and we do have more reliable sources which we have yet to source, as the page is still a work in progress and we are putting together our sources. It'd be nice to give us some time as we've both, only started using wikipedia to contribute, and we don't know very much coding, so we're taking our time. It'd be nice if you could give us an actual chance to try and complete this project, as we're doing it in-between school, and live in different countries, therefore making it difficult to communicate as often as we possibly can. If you need more "reliable" sources, please wait as we are trying our best to put this page together. Thank you for your consideration and understanding. (Felt this needed to be put onto the discussion page instead of my own talk page.) Mydarlingblue (talk) 19:53, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I don't think this should be deleted. There's not much we know about Daniel and I am quite happy when someone works on such a thing. Kind Regards, UmbrellaOwl from Tumblr. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.134.76.138 (talk) 12:03, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 15:45, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Austria-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 15:45, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Minnesota-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 15:45, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I don't think this page should be deleted because it would help a lot of people know more about Daniel. I think it's finally great that someone decided to make a wiki page about him. I think you should give it a chance to grow and provide more information. Best regards, itsalonganddarkdecember from Tumblr. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.39.78.11 (talk) 19:18, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, this page should not be deleted. A lot of people, and fans, would find this page very helpful if only you would give it a chance to be improved. Please consider. From theintrovertedcat. 180.193.130.231 (talk) 03:13, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This page was very informative to me and definitely should not be deleted. Upon hearing that there's a member of Owl City who makes beautiful Austria-inspired music, I searched around only to be disappointed due to the lack of response I got. However, when some brilliant people made this entry, I was highly thankful as I now know about all of his works, and I then went on to itunes and bought a lot of his work. If you really think Daniel is not, as you put it, a 'Notable Musician', search him on itunes and then see what you think. Thank you for your consideration. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.160.121.233 (talk) 05:17, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wanted to mention that I am currently researching Daniel on google, and there is over 2 million results. Currently on page 54 of my google search, and I've found a lot of information I didn't even know about before. Mydarlingblue (talk) 07:54, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I do not think that this should be deleted. 71.254.10.188 (talk) 19:45, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Owl City. The sourcing in the article consist primarily of unreliable sources. I cannot find any coverage to indicate that he meets the general inlusion guidelines for a standalone article, nor is there evidence to that those specific to musicians are met. -- Whpq (talk) 20:19, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Owl City. Sourcing in the article and from searches is primary, social media, unreliable, or trivial mentions. May achieve sufficient notability in time, but appears to be well under the threshold now. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 04:23, 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, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 04:35, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect As per the others, I feel this should be redirected to Owl City. On a short note, I feel the above IP's are different computers used by the creator of the article. Wiki4 Blog 06:11, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I suppose we've come to accept that it will be redirected. Thank you for at least having a discussion about it rather than just doing it out of the blue without any kind warning. Also, to Wiki4Blog, the above IP's are most certainly not from Watchers3 and I, they are actually from various Hoot Owls all over the globe who have either, 1. Met Daniel, or 2. Know of Daniel. I know you're probably not going to take my word for it, but do you honestly think a UNI student and a high school student have the time to find 6 other computers, let alone over thirty others to rate the article? We posted about this article to Twitter, Facebook, and Tumblr, reaching out to a couple thousand people from various different countries around the world, and this is what we got back. I'm sorry if you don't believe me, but that's the truth. Mydarlingblue (talk) 17:23, 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 merge to Amaury Bitetti . MBisanz ^talk 02:54, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Bitetti Combat[edit]

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

I found nothing to show this organization meets WP:ORG. The only coverage is routine sports coverage about upcoming fight cards or results. There's no significant independent coverage of the organization and it doesn't matter who founded it or who was going to be a ref at one of their events. Mdtemp (talk) 17:52, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Mdtemp (talk) 17:52, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep. passes WP:GNG. If it is big enough for ESPN to cover I'd say it is notable and worthy of Wikipedia; regardless of what country it is from. PortlandOregon97217 (talk) 00:52, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Please search Google Brazil if you are going to do a basic notability search. you will see that it easily passes any once through of that search engine. PortlandOregon97217 (talk) 00:57, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 16:43, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 16:43, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment When I searched Google Brazil the first page was full of either fight results or announcements of upcoming fights. Both of these fall under WP:ROUTINE. If you have some good translations that show notability, please add them to the article. Papaursa (talk) 22:26, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Seeing as this is an organization, and not an event, what you present about wp:routine is not applicable. However, Passes WP:ORG specifically WP:ORGDEPTH. PortlandOregon97217 (talk) 04:58, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If I spoke Portuguese maybe. Otherwise, I'm not leaving it up to google translate. Actually, google chrome translate it, albeit poorly. That is where the info comes from for the Portuguese refs. I was careful with the parts I pulled out from there. Pretty much I pulled basic info, because the sentences that google chrome produces aren't very coherant. I don't know why you would disregard the first two English refs on this page as they are non trivial/incidental. Trivial/incidental ≠ Routine. Whether it is routine or not does not matter. What does matter is that the mentions are not trivial/incidental. Like I said earlier, ESPN reported on one of their events, plus all the other refs = Keep via wp:org AND WP:GNG . For what it's worth, I pulled this quote from the mmajunkie(a part of USA Today) article about Arona

The show took place at the 19,000-seat Maracanazinho in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, and aired nationally on pay-per-view.PortlandOregon97217 (talk) 04:36, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Last week's Baltimore-Denver game was seen be 80,000 live with temperatures 25 degrees below freezing plus tens of millions of people watching, yet it's not notable. Your argument doesn't wash. In addition, I don't see how WP:ORGDEPTH is met. You dismiss my routine coverage comment, yet you quote a guideline that requires "a level of attention that extends well beyond routine announcements." As far as translations go, you might want to look at WP:NONENG, especially when your whole claim of notability is based on them. Papaursa (talk) 19:28, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/Redirect to Amaury Bitetti I don't presently see the sources necessary to support a claim of notability for this organization, but it could be included in Bitetti's article. Papaursa (talk) 19:28, 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) 04:45, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Amaury Bitetti The organization is already mentioned in Amaury Bitetti's article, but I didn't find the coverage necessary to show the organiztion meets WP:GNG or WP:ORG. 204.126.132.231 (talk) 15:36, 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. Already deleted--this AfD was already spurious. Drmies (talk) 04:47, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Alex chang[edit]

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

Unremarkable person as article topic, user involved with/created page Alexander Chang that was speedily deleted, user removed deletion proposal tag on Alex chang without explanation. ɱ (talk) 04:10, 23 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 23. Snotbot t • c » 04:20, 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 Dracaena fragrans. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 10:38, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Masale[edit]

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

This article is about the Kiswahili name of the plant dracaena fragrans, commonly known in the United States as "corn plant". There is already a Wikipedia article about this plant. AfricaTanz (talk) 03:33, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In that case this needs redirection, not deletion. The name "masale" is used in English-language sources about Chaga culture. Phil Bridger (talk) 06:41, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Irrelevant. Kiswahili names for many things are used in English-language sources. AfricaTanz (talk) 07:21, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - Then they are also valid redirects. Phil Bridger (talk) 07:30, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    - Absurd. No more than "puerta" or "mlango" should be a redirect for "door". AfricaTanz (talk) 10:37, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      - Sorry, but you're the one being absurd here. English-language books do not refer to doors by those names, but many do refer to Dracaena fragrans as "masale". Anyone coming across a reference to a plant by this name and wanting to find out more about it should be taken to the article where it is described. That's the whole point of redirects. Phil Bridger (talk) 11:04, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Seems an absolutely clear cut case for being made a redirect. Peter coxhead (talk) 07:39, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as above. The name 'masale' and the Chagga people are already mentioned and cited in the Dracaena fragrans article. There is no need for anything more than redirects to preserve the various search terms. Additional facts and citations can be inserted into the D. fragrans article. Chiswick Chap (talk) 10:59, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:14, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organisms-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:14, 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 delete. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 10:39, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Dating Guy[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Previously deleted at AFD and subsequently under WP:G4. Recreator has argued that G4 was invalid as the text is different to that of the previous article. To settle the matter, I've restored the page and have brought it up for discussion here again. Please check the previous discussion (and the endorsement of its close at DRV) for more details. Yunshui 雲‍水 03:15, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Strong oppose: this article has multiple WP:RS and thus meets all of the criteria outlined at WP:GNG. Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 03:25, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The sources really aren't all that reliable when you get down to it. Of the sources, here is a summary.

[49] This is a primary source, as it's the official Teletoon site for the cartoon.
[50] This is simply an episode guide. This sort of thing doesn't really show notability in the slightest and at best is a WP:TRIVIAL source you can use to back up episode names. It shows that it aired, but existing is not notability.
[51] IMDb is never usable as a source that shows notability and some question its reliability as a trivial source because essentially anyone can edit it. I myself can vouch that I've seen people deliberately go to IMDb to add information in order to try to push their point.
[52] Another primary source, unusable to show notability and in this case, doesn't prove anything that isn't already said in the first primary source.
[53] This is actually usable as a RS to show notability, but we'd need more than one such source.
[54] This one is sort of borderline usable. It almost reads like a press release, so I wouldn't be surprised if this was heavily taken from one. Sometimes short articles can be usable to show notability, but this wouldn't be the case with this link. It's trivial at best.
[55] Amazon is unusable as a RS. It's actually unusable as a source in general, so I'll be removing this one.
[56] Not every review site is usable as a reliable source and this site is not one of those exceptions. It's not exactly the "everyone with a keyboard can review" site that Amazon is, but there's nothing to suggest that this site is a RS.

Basically, only one of the sources posted on the article is usable for notability purposes and that one source isn't enough. I've removed a good deal of the sources and I want to discourage you from re-adding them. No matter how many unreliable sources you add, they're still unreliable. No amount of unreliable sources will show notability. A good example of this is that I've seen AfDs where people slathered hundreds of non-usable sources on an article and it was still almost unanimously deleted. If anything, it worked against the article. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:31, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Numbers 3 5 (as you pointed out), 6 (non-trivial), and 8 qualify as reliable sources. In the case of number 8, it's a review from "Canada's largest independent online all entertainment magazine" with a large number of editors and that has been around since 2007 - see: [57] Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 04:45, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

IMDb has never been usable as anything other than a trivial source at best. (WP:IMDB) In very, VERY rare circumstances it can be used as a reliable source, but that's almost always been cases where IMDb was used to back up things such as awards that the show/movie/actor/etc won. Even then it's something that you'd have to back up with other sources, as the reliability has always been questioned because anyone can edit IMDb. Again, I've seen people log into IMDb to add claims that they or their film has won such and such an award, only to discover that the award claim cannot be backed up in other sources and that the only one claiming the subject has received the award is the subject themselves or someone representing them. Six is very debatable, as it's so brief and seems to be taken from a press release. No matter how lengthy an article is, if something is taken predominantly from a press release it's considered to be trivial coverage. This seems to be the case here. As far as the website goes, longevity is not a sign of reliability and that it has a large number of editors actually works against it because there's no way of really knowing how much checking really goes into the reviews. The problem with that website is that it looks to be the type of site that accepts reviews from almost anyone. It might do some quality checking, but it's nowhere near on par as say, Film Threat. Even if we do count all of the sources you are saying are reliable as RS, those aren't enough to show that this passes notability guidelines and you'd be hard pressed to get someone to call IMDb a reliable source, and many would count the AWN link as trivial coverage.Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:39, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

My mistake - number 3 should have been number 5 (though it seems obvious since I wrote "as you pointed out"). Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 05:53, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(sighs) Considering that you're starting to get into a revert war with me over the sources, I just assumed that you were talking about 3 and were a little confused. I really recommend that you read over WP:RS and in the future, use the reliable sources noticeboard as a place to ask about sources before posting anything.Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 06:06, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As discussed in the prior AfD and in the Deletion Review discussion there is not enough significant coverage in reliable sources to have this be notable. All of the sources in the article were already presented at DRV and the deletion was endorsed. If necessary, I can run through the sources again.

Ref #1: The publisher's TV spot summary for the show doesn't add to notability.

Ref #2: Zap2It's episode guide doesn't add to notability. It is not discussion or anything with coverage.

Ref #3: An IMDB listing doesn't add to notability, it is essentially an editable wiki and has no coverage anyways.

Ref #4: MarbleMedia seems to be either another TV listing summary or a press release, not sure which. But it doesn't have any significant commentary on the subject, so it doesn't add to notability. Not to mention that it is also a publisher, so adds even less than nothing because of that.

Ref #5: Metro News is actually a reliable source, however the article is just a short, in universe interview with one of the characters and has no critical commentary. So if it adds anything to notability, it is a very minimal amount.

Ref #6: Animation World Network is a somewhat reliable source and this is the second best reference in the bunch. But, even so, it says practically nothing on the subject besides that it's going to be released and reads similarly to a tv listing.

Ref #7: An Amazon sales listing is not reliable source coverage and adds nothing to notability.

Ref #8: The Press Plus 1 review is the best reference here. It is an actual review of the season 1 DVD. However, the site's reliability and importance is questionable and there would need to be more than just this one good source to show notability.

As a whole there needs to be at least two more references that are at the level of quality of the Press Plus 1 source and are from known reliable publications. Without those, i'm not seeing notability here at all, just a cobbling of extremely disparate sources that lend practically nothing to the article. Silver seren^C 04:41, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to note that I'm asking about some of these sources at the RS noticeboard. (here's the link) The more I look at the AWN link, the more I'm convinced that it's taken from a press release. Typically in a press release the names of the show, the creators, etc are put in all caps. That the link does that kind of makes me believe that it's taken almost verbatim from a press release.Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:45, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I've waded through a ton of search pages with just the term "Dating Guy" minus the creators' names. The result is that I'm convinced now more than ever that the show is not notable. It has won no awards, nor has it even received much notice when it released. There was a spate of press releases and a couple halfhearted brief news posts based off of said press releases, but no in-depth coverage. Other than the dubious Press Plus 1 review, there was no long term coverage of this show in any reliable sources. It's very trivially and briefly mentioned now and again when a voice actor or one of the creators does something else, but nothing that would actually be usable as far as notability goes. This just isn't notable. I tried cleaning up the article and giving it at least a passing chance, but Dogmaticeclectic has repeatedly reverted to "his" version of the article, which includes several links that multiple editors in different venues have told him are unusable.Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 06:02, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A nationally aired television program that survived two seasons, and did get some press. That meets notability standards in my opinion. --GRuban (talk) 16:14, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Can you show me what press you're talking about? Because being nationally aired or having two seasons has nothing to do with notability. There's plenty of shows that have had two seasons and don't meet notability standards. Silver seren^C 22:21, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Notability says "This page in a nutshell: Wikipedia articles cover notable topics—those that have gained sufficiently significant attention by the world at large and over a period of time". I'm arguing that a nationally aired television program, aired over two seasons, does in fact have plenty to do with notability: it indicates having gained sufficiently significant attention by the world at large ("being nationally aired") over a period of time ("having two seasons"). --GRuban (talk) 23:06, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Then there needs to be sources to prove that. Not every television show is notable. Just saying that it aired does not give it notability. You need to have sources to show that it's notable. If you can find the sources and present them, then fine. But, otherwise, you don't have an argument here. Silver seren^C 23:20, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What is this, The Argument Sketch now? :-) Trust me, I have an argument. You might not be convinced, but that doesn't make it not an argument. The sources as presented aren't great - they're not the most reliable or the most indepth - but they do exist, and in combination with the "nationally aired for two seasons" bit is enough to make me argue that it should be kept. --GRuban (talk) 23:41, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry. I just meant that it's not a very good argument. :/ People usually try to at least meet the GNG and all. Silver seren^C 23:58, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No "at least" about it. I think it meets WP:GNG: "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" by a couple of entries of TokyoGirl's list, even though she specifically made that list to refute that claim. Not by a lot, but by enough. --GRuban (talk) 15:49, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Sources have not significantly improved since the last AfD, and the conclusions from the last AfD still stand. This show fails WP:GNG. LK (talk) 05:32, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Tokyogirl and AfD #1. It's not notable and the sources are as TG noted. WP is not a junkyard. GregJackP Boomer! 14:03, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:53, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:53, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:53, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The analysis of the sources shows that this topic doesn't have enough significant coverage and fails WP:N. Till 14:32, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – the topic lacks the source coverage to have a solid article, apart from primary sites, video hosting sites and retailers. —WP:PENGUIN · ^{[ TALK ]} 15:05, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per examination of sources used above. People who want to save articles have an unfortunate tendency to grasp at straws and try to use bad sources to support what they want to do, and then that just encourages further use of bad sources elsewhere. These don't qualify under WP:RS rules to be used at all, and there's further higher standards to demonstrate notability to have a Wikipedia article per WP:GNG rules. As a real show it's kind of surprising there are no good sources out there, but some may turn up eventually. When that happens the article can be created again. DreamGuy (talk) 18:43, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The coverage as note above consists of mostly unreliable sources. Setting aside the Press1Plus review for a moment, those sources that are reliable only provide superficial coverage and fails to qualify as signiticant coverage. The only coverage of significance is the Press1Plus review of the season 1 DVD and I am not convinced it is a reliable source. As for the argument put forth by GRuban that two seasons of broadcast evidences notability, I am not convinced. Teletoon Canada is not an over the air boradcaster, it is a Category A services specialty channel which means it is mandated for for carriage on cable and satellite. Canadian content develoment is normally a condition of license from the CRTC as evidenced [58]. Given this, I only see evidence that Teletoon is trying to fulfill their license obligation, and not necessariyl any indication of notability. -- Whpq (talk) 15:48, 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 redirect to Hong Kong Disneyland#Park celebrations. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 10:41, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Demon Jungle[edit]

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

Stub article that lacks references and notability. Haunt attractions never get their own article in WikiProject Amusement Parks. Astros4477 (Talk) 03:06, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Hong Kong Disneyland or Adventureland (Disney) JayJay^{What did I do?} 03:40, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:48, 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 The Singing Bee. MBisanz ^talk 02:54, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

List of The Singing Bee (Australian game show) episodes[edit]

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

Unsourced list of unencyclopedic content. — ΛΧΣ²¹ 03:01, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This isn't of a singing contest, like American Idol or Pop Idol. This is of an Australian edition of an American game show, The Singing Bee. Imaging huge collection of soap episodes or game show episodes, and you get messy loads of everything. --George Ho (talk) 03:07, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. We simply do not have such articles for shows like this. — Statυs (talk, contribs) 03:08, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:45, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:45, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:45, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It would surely be sufficient just to put some kind of summary table in the head artice with who won each round or some such. This feels like overkill. (Full disclosure - George Ho posted on my talkpage about this article, asking me if I thought he should nominate it for deletion). --Elen of the Roads (talk) 15:11, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - we have oodles of list of ...episodes on all sorts of TV shows. Having only watched a few episodes I am not overly keen to find refs...but deletion isn't about the poor state of the article. Or merge if one must as the parent article ain't terribly big. Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:39, 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. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:43, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

We Are Friends (album)[edit]

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

Fails notability guidelines for albums. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 04:20, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - It has been nearly half a year since I had tagged the article with a Notability tag - and notability has not been established. If more notability is established - not enough for a seperate article - it can always be merged to deadmau5. — MST☆R ^{(Chat Me!)} 04:49, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 12:50, 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, Courcelles 02:38, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Redirect to deadmau5 JayJay^{What did I do?} 03:42, 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} 02:41, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Athletes USA, Ltd[edit]

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

Non-notable company. Spamish. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 06:00, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 13:19, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 13:19, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 13:19, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 13:19, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 13:19, 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, Courcelles 02:34, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Unreferenced, promotional article about a sports scholarship agency. Contains a fairly extensive unreferenced history, suggesting conflict of interest. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 17:02, 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 Erick Morillo. MBisanz ^talk 02:54, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Subliminal (record label)[edit]

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

The article does not contain a single reference or citation establishing notability Nightscream (talk) 06:05, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per above. Nightscream (talk) 06:06, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There's no real need for you to add a delete vote; your nomination makes it clear that you support deletion. Ducknish (talk) 22:47, 16 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 16. Snotbot t • c » 06:56, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, I can't find any real sources to support notability. I've also removed an uncited praise sentence from the article. Ducknish (talk) 22:47, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 13:31, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 13:31, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 13:31, 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, Courcelles 02:33, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Erick Morillo, the label's founder. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:41, 30 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. Salvidrim! ✉ 02:03, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hot Chase[edit]

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

Tagged for notability for 5 years; unref Boleyn (talk) 10:46, 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☆★ 13:52, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete:~~ Keep (see new comment below) I did some searching, but did not locate any WP:RS with significant coverage. A passing mention in The Games Machine (Issue 13, Dec. 1988, pg. 28) described the game as a "follow-up to WEC Le Mans." That makes me wonder if it is sufficiently related to either WEC Le Mans or the series of Le Mans 24 Hours video games to redirect to one of these articles? --Mike Agricola (talk) 21:08, 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 02:31, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Article cites KLOV, which is considered a reliable source by the VG project. Has dedicated reviews in both Commodore User and Your Sinclair: http://www.solvalou.com/subpage/arcade_reviews/63/180/hot_chase_review.html --Jtalledo (talk) 19:42, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I was not previously aware of solvalou.com. I have added it to my list of retro gaming sources for use in future AfDs. I concur that the gaming magazine reviews which the site has archived (esp. this one) present significant coverage of this release and so I have changed my vote accordingly. --Mike Agricola (talk) 18:58, 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 delete. MBisanz ^talk 02:54, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Language of Fools[edit]

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

non-notable album Walter Görlitz (talk) 02:30, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable, no references to suggest so, fails WP:NALBUMS JayJay^{What did I do?} 03:45, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:40, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Love Coma if kept, otherwise delete. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:39, 30 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 demonstrated. Boleyn (talk) 09:52, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

HTS Kimberley[edit]

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

Tagged for notability and unref for 5 years Boleyn (talk) 10:48, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep equivalent of a high school. High schools are notable, per WP:HIGHSCHOOL.--Auric talk 22:39, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 13:57, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 13:57, 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, Courcelles 02:30, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES JayJay^{What did I do?} 03:48, 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 no consensus. MBisanz ^talk 03:02, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Maya Harris[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) 12:28, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete; the subject of this BLP is related to a notable individual, California AG Kamala Harris, however notability is not inherited. Looking throught he sources, the subject has been mentioned multiple times in print and news publications, however non would be consired significant coverage as defined by WP:GNG.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 18:56, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 15:13, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 15:13, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 15:13, 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, Courcelles 02:22, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Subject is notable and passes WP:BIO without any help from her sister. She was the youngest dean of a law school in the United States and as director of ACLU's largest affiliate, she was a highly visible public figure in California. Her advocacy for police reform and authorship of papers on community policing as well as her current work with the Ford Foundation cement her notability. While sources have been added to the article that demonstrate significant coverage, many more can be found. Gobōnobō ⁺ ^c 19:15, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

However, the subject herself has not received significant coverage; the organizations she has worked for/with maybe notable in and of themselves but that does not mean that subject herself is notable, see WP:NOTINHERITED. It could be argued that she is notable due to WP:AUTHOR, but from what I can find, she doesn't appear to be "widely cited". She is briefly mentioned by many widely cited scholarly works, but her own works are not widely cited.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 02:41, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with your assessment here, RightCowLeftCoast. If you haven't revisited the article since your original !vote, sources have been added that now establish notability. I don't think an argument for WP:AUTHOR can be reasonably made, but the subject easily meets WP:BASIC. Coverage in the Stanford Lawyer is in-depth as is the coverage in these links: [59][60]. WP:NOTINHERITED is not a factor here because Maya is independently notable. Harris was one of the youngest law school deans in US history and has been a spokesperson and public policy advocate in her positions at ACLU[61] and the Ford Foundation. Her comments on public policy issues are regularly picked up by national newspapers [62][63][64], demonstrating a breadth of coverage. Gobōnobō ⁺ ^c 21:30, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

it looks like we will have to agree to disagree. In the first three links she is part of the articles, but not the primary subject; so I can understand the argument, but do not agree with the assessment. On this point I will have to agree to disagree. That being said, as a Dean the subject does not warrant notability per WP:ACADEMIC.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 14:34, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. She clearly doesn't pass WP:PROF (neither having two publications nor being law dean is enough) so I think we have to look for WP:GNG instead. I found a lot of news stories quoting her briefly or otherwise mentioning her trivially, but I also found one with a couple paragraphs of nontrivial detail about her (in the context of her promotion to associate director of ACLU) in the Oakland Tribune, and three going into nontrivial detail about her writings in the New Pittsburgh Courier, the Cincinatti Enquirer, and Boston Globe. I also found one article mentioning her only briefly, but as the winner of a local award: Alameda Sun. So the case is weak, but above threshold for me. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:16, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Do those few paragraphs warrant significant coverage of the subject There are several quotes and brief mentions, but none that are in-depth by any stretch of the term. The closest to significant coverage is the Stanford Lawyer, and in that she shares space with her husband/spouse as the article's subject. And as that is the only one where she gets close to significant coverage, are we to say that any time a major alma mater (say any major accredited university (from Oxford on down to California State University, Stanislaus)) of a subject does a biography on the subject does that make the subject automatically notable?

I've been involved in AfDs that received a keep due to the subject having an obit in the New York Times, as well as there has been AfDs even with the New York Times obit.

So WP:GNG requires significant coverage. Where is it?

Has a major publication does a lengthy biography where the subject is the primary subject of the article? So far, I have not seen one.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 11:17, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

We have significant coverage of her works, and some level of coverage of her personal life. That should be enough. Ignoring the coverage of her works and demanding even more coverage of her personal life is the wrong direction, because that leads to an encyclopedia where we only cover celebrities and not people who are actually known for what they have done. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:34, 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. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:37, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

IT Metrics and Productivity Institute[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) 12:41, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 15:35, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 15:35, 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, Courcelles 02:20, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: a consortium of world-wide experts that is dedicated to the creation and dissemination of best practice standards in the IT and software industry. MEGO. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 17:04, 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. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:36, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Lowendalmasai[edit]

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

Non-notable business, with this ~~article~~ advertisement written by someone with significant WP:COI. Wholly promotional in nature (✉→BWilkins←✎) 12:43, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Altered Walter (talk) 13:13, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no assertion of notability per WP:CORP, no significant coverage online from WP:Reliable sources. I've tried repeatedly to tone down the promotional tone in the article, but my edits keep getting reverted, apparently by a marketing intern at the company. That can be fixed, but the notability issue remains. Altered Walter (talk) 12:50, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 15:40, 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, Courcelles 02:20, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

By all accounts Delete, there is no independent 3rd party reference to be found. Alfy32 (talk) 02:43, 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 Keep (non-admin closure) Bulgarian sources confirm notability. Boleyn (talk) 09:56, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

AfDs for this article:

JobTiger[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) 13:09, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Google News has a lot of search results in Bulgarian. Did the proposer read them? --Colapeninsula (talk) 00:33, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 16:01, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 16:01, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bulgaria-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 16:01, 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, Courcelles 02:17, 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 keep. Nomination withdrawn with no non-keep !votes following relisting. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 09:11, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Joyride: Remixes[edit]

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

Unref article, tagged for notability for 5 years Boleyn (talk) 13:21, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 16:15, 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, Courcelles 02:17, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Reviews of this release found at Allmusic [65] (already linked from the article), Tiny Mix Tapes [66], and Pegasus News [67]. There is enough information available in these sources to satisfy WP:NALBUMS. Gong show 07:38, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination withdrawn thanks for your hard work, Boleyn (talk) 10:09, 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} 02:34, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Junior League of Peoria[edit]

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

Unref article, tagged for notability for 5 years. Possible merge to Peoria, Illinois. Boleyn (talk) 13:26, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 16:30, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 16:30, 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, Courcelles 02:16, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This article is about a local Junior League chapter. Surprisingly, they're located in Peoria, Illinois. They own a building that's a local landmark and are locally involved in admirable charitable work. I don't think this amounts to lasting encyclopedic significance. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 17:08, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Nice group, but I'd like to see what they've done of lasting -- or more than local -- importance. Bearian (talk) 23:38, 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. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:34, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Waqar Ali Khan[edit]

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

Tagged for notability for 5 years Boleyn (talk) 15:47, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Seems to fail WP:ENT and a redirect is impossible since the show's article does not exist. I am seeing a lot of social media cruft but no substantive coverage, although as usual this might be a language issue. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 18:59, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 17:14, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 17:14, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 17:14, 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, Courcelles 02:14, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I found a website for the show here which makes me think the show is about news affairs as there is also a team profile for Waqar Ali Khan here that claims he has worked with Pakistani-American businesspeople and is well known in both Pakistan and the United States and yet there is no English evidence of this or any evidence to support the content at the "team profile". I recovered the one reference here but it never clarifies what exactly this show is about other than "Pakistani-American people". A search for Waqar Ali Khan and the show at Pakistani newspapers The Nation and Daily Times did not provide anything useful (I found other people with the name so unless he is a newcomer to the industry, they were irrelevant). I also found this which mentions a Safeer-e- Mustafa Hamdani (a Hamdani is mentioned in the recovered article) but it seems to be irrelevant. It would help if we knew his name in a native language or any aliases. There does not seem sufficient evidence to support an English article but I'm happy to reconsider if non-English sources are found. SwisterTwister talk 04:53, 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 Ghost Ride It. (non-admin closure) Mkdw ^talk 20:12, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Da Yellow Bus Rydah[edit]

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

This album has been expected since 2008 and it remains unreleased. There just isn't enough reliable information on this topic to pass the notability requirements per WP:N or for unreleased albums per WP:NALBUMS. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 23:00, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 03:20, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Ghost Ride It, the single that actually was released, to some notice. The article offers no cite to suggest that the album will actually materialize in 2013, or ever, and I couldn't readily find anything useful in searches, as to current release date or to make the case that this is one of those rare Chinese Democracy-type cases. Certainly, it's not up on Amazon for pre-order. Fails WP:GNG. And redirect, not merge, as what little here worth keeping is already incorporated in the song's article. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 01:22, 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, ·Add§hore· ^{Talk To Me!} 15:49, 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, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Mistah F.A.B. or (if kept) Ghost Ride It. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:33, 30 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 New Normal (TV series). Notability is not inherent. Keep arguments do not address the lack of reliable and independent sources establishing notability needed for a standalone article. (non-admin closure) Mkdw ^talk 20:15, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Bebe Wood[edit]

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

PROD contested by IP, no reason given. This person is a non-notable child actress who fails WP:GNG and WP:NACTOR. Giant Snowman 21:54, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete too soon perhaps, but right now there's no notability there. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 23:56, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 02:31, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 02:31, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Kansas-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 02:31, 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, ·Add§hore· ^{Talk To Me!} 15:50, 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, 23 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, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Redirect She isn't really notable other than the one show and a few minor parts, love the show, redirect to The New Normal? JayJay^{What did I do?} 03:48, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Non-notable? She stars on a primetime network sitcom in the United States! Yes, it's thinly sourced, but she's a child actor with only a few roles. We've got birthdate, residence, and role. That's all a stub needs and to redlink or circular link this is going to be embarrassing when she eventually gets off-hiatus film and television work. IMDB link added to make it at least into stub standards. Nate • (chatter) 07:19, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to The New Normal as non-notable. A child actor who hasn't received much press coverage and has only one regular supporting role and a few guest appearances in other shows, hence not meeting WP:NACTOR. I think Wikipedia can live with the embarrassment of deleting this if she becomes a big star in the future (and for every child actor getting lasting fame there's lots who give it up at an early age). --Colapeninsula (talk) 10:15, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to The New Normal. Majoreditor (talk) 23:57, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Redirecting to TNN would not work, as there is nothing there to describe the actress, only her character. What happens when the show is over, do we redirect to her next project??? — ^Wylie_Coyote 16:42, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. She has a starring and central role on the show, appearing in every episode to date. While she has not been in many other projects yet, her main project - The New Normal - is a large one. I agree that this article could certainly be beefed up with more information about her and her background.184.161.227.119 (talk) 04:44, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to The New Normal, lacks notability beyond that show. RadioFan (talk) 15:09, 30 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 Mendeed#EP.27s. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:30, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Killing Something Beautiful[edit]

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

Article unref and tagged for notability for 5 years Boleyn (talk) 15:51, 16 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 16. Snotbot t • c » 16:12, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Mendeed as non-notable recording. --Colapeninsula (talk) 16:42, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 18:23, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 18:23, 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, Courcelles 02:06, 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} 02:29, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

David Schiff (portfolio manager)[edit]

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

Sorry, but this person has no independent notability. He has a job managing money, but there is no coverage of him as an individual that I can find. He's mentioned here and there, but these are mere mentions, and much of the reference section is taken up with business directory-type entries. Drmies (talk) 16:36, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 18:33, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 18:33, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - lacks significant coverage. Bearian (talk) 22:34, 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, Courcelles 02:03, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - as Courcelles mentions, coverage isn't significant. Majoreditor (talk) 23:53, 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 Result: Keep (non-admin closure) Nomination withdrawn by creator. Boleyn (talk) 09:59, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Latin Eagles[edit]

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

Tagged for notability and unref for 5 years Boleyn (talk) 18:07, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Based on the books and to some degree news links above, this article should exist.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 14:37, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 18:52, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 18:52, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 18:52, 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, Courcelles 02:02, 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 merge to Unto the Locust. KTC (talk) 00:11, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Locust (Machine Head song)[edit]

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

Music recording article fails notability per WP:NALBUMS. - Mr X 18:13, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Unto the Locust, the album from which it was taken. --Michig (talk) 18:49, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 18:55, 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, Courcelles 02:01, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Unto the Locust, merging as necessary. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:29, 30 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} 02:28, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sudtirolo Rugby Cavaliers[edit]

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

Non-notable sports club. No GHits except social media. No GNews/Books. GregJackP Boomer! 01:59, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:30, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:30, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Rugby union-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:30, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails to meet WP:RU/N. noq (talk) 08:41, 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. ·Add§hore· ^{Talk To Me!} 10:46, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Leilehua Golf Course[edit]

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

Tagged for notability and unref for 5 years Boleyn (talk) 18:47, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 19:25, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Golf-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 19:25, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hawaii-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 19:25, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I can't find any independent coverage at all about this golf course. Google News Archive returns only passing mentions of it, as the site for various events. Google finds descriptions at golf course directories, but nothing from Reliable Sources. It isn't even clear where it is; the article says Mililani, while online listings say Wahiawa or Schofield Barracks. --MelanieN (talk) 19:55, 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, Courcelles 01:58, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:GNG....William 16:33, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Does not meet WP:CORP / WP:CORPDEPTH. Mkdw ^talk 00:56, 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☆★ 15:32, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Liu Xingtu[edit]

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

Tagged for notability for 5 years; I couldn't establish notability Boleyn (talk) 19:19, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 19:56, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 19:56, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 19:56, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If the claim to membership in the Chinese Academy of Engineering can be verified, this is a clear keep. I've not been able to do so - travelling right now, and somehow the web connections to the site are not going through. There is also the problem that the English version of the site is really primitive, so some knowledge of Chinese will be necessary. Ray^Talk 22:09, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Try 刘兴土 and 中国工程院 (Liu Xingtu and Chinese Academy of Engineering). According to his article on Baidu [68] (in Chinese) he gained membership in 2007 so it just needs a more reliable source. This CCTV article [69] (in Chinese) mentions some related project but I haven't had time to read it. Feel free to have a go. Funny ^Pika! 05:57, 23 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 01:55, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Taking FunnyPika's advice, I found an article [70] that does confirm his academy status, passing WP:PROF#C3, although he seems to have been embroiled in some kind of plagiarism scandal. Ray^Talk 08:54, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Withdraw nomination Thanks for your hard work, Boleyn (talk) 12:19, 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 Keep Notability demonstrated. Boleyn (talk) 10:02, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Live on WBAB[edit]

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

Tagged for notability and unref for 5 years; I couldn't establish notability Boleyn (talk) 19:39, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Verifiable, encyclopedic content on an album by a notable band. I would have gone for a merge to the band but it wouldn't fit well there. I see no benefit to the encyclopedia in deleting this. --Michig (talk) 19:54, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 20:01, 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, Courcelles 01:51, 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 merge to Mondoweiss. MBisanz ^talk 02:56, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Adam Horowitz (journalist)[edit]

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

Non notable journalist, outside the context of his website, Mondoweiss. A merge/redirect proposal to the Mondoweiss article was rejected on the discussion page, with a request that it be taken here, so here we are. The article lists no 3rd party references- only self-published material from Mondoweiss, or autobiographical notes about the subject from the various venues where he has published articles. They think it's all over (talk) 01:10, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect. As articulated by nom. Unfortunately could not be constructively resolved on talk page. Plot Spoiler (talk) 01:47, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. This article should be changed to a redirect to Mondoweiss. (Cross posted to article Talk page and AFD.) Andrew³²⁷ 05:08, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 12:09, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 12:09, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 12:09, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Palestine-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 12:09, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect. - Fails WP:AUTHOR--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 13:10, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep - Nomination and support for it evidently POV because of his criticism of Israel. Is he really less notable than many of the individuals listed at Category:Jewish American writers? (Check the first five. How many of those could be nominated and booted?) He's published in four major publications. Needs more refs which can be found with a better NewsArchiveSearch. For example, New York Times, Interview on WBEZ, plus books google mentions. So he works for/with Philip Weiss. He's a young guy just getting going. ~~Do we go through wikipedia looking for every individual who works closely with someone more famous to delete their articles?~~ CarolMooreDC 15:53, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please strike your unsubstantiated attacks and abide by WP:AGF. If any other writers pages fail notability, you are free to put them up for Afd if that is necessary. Plot Spoiler (talk) 15:59, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have any strong motivation to remove other writers articles unless I happen on one that's obviously promotional, untrue or unverifiable. But motivation is the essence of the issue and POV happens. Why else would we have WP:ARBPIA if arbitration wasn't needed on all the ongoing POV fights, especially various attacks on critics of Israel? Often involving the same usual suspects, including me Working on such "attack" WP:BLPs of Jewish critics of Israel probably has taken 25% my editing time on wikipedia over the last 6 years. CarolMooreDC 16:43, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

let me echo the request that you strike out the bad faith personal attack. By your admission - 'He's a young guy just getting going.'- i.e - not yet notable. They think it's all over (talk) 17:14, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Carol, if I were you I would just walk away and do something you enjoy. Almost no one is reading the article[71] and there is no point engaging with They think it's all over or doing anything they ask. Sean.hoyland - talk 17:44, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

~~One can always think positive thoughts one will not get a deletionist admin unaware of partisan designs to decide on fate. But I better hurry up and copy the current content just in case.~~ CarolMooreDC 00:28, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Additionally, "he's a young guy just getting going" was inaccurate since he's about 15 years older than I realized; in any case the point being that he's sure to have more WP:RS about him; and he certainly has far more than other writers with articles that have not been challenged. Plus I've added some more to the article with more I've seen to come. CarolMooreDC 07:35, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep-per Carolmooredc Dlv999 (talk) 04:16, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Mondoweiss per nomination. Also, agree that multiple violations of WP:AGF on this page should be self-reverted. Frizzmaz (talk) 18:52, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Is it my imagination, or is there a different standard for article talk pages than for admin-oriented pages where obvious biases may be mentioned? Rushing out but will look it up this evening. CarolMooreDC 20:00, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

FYI see clarifying question here. Hope I don't have to chase around a bunch of diffs from contributions or noticeboard or AfD pages. Sigh. CarolMooreDC 02:21, 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, AutomaticStrikeout (T • C) 01:47, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Mondoweiss Looking at the article it appears to be well sourced. However, upon further investigation there are numerous primary sources. Even the references cite Horowitz as the writer and there are numerous links to his own publication or journalist profile page at newspapers such as the Huffington Post. I took at look at the New York Times article and it was a trivial mention where a conflict was the direct subject of the publication and opinions from multiple people were expressed (one being Horowitz's blog post). Several other sources were the same. In the end, this article (despite there being references) did not provide references from independent and reliable sources where Horowitz was the direct focus of the publication to establish notability. Mkdw ^talk 20:30, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note, the nominator has been blocked as a sock of NoCal100 (talk · contribs). Ive stricken his comments. nableezy - 23:45, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for note. However this same point as been made or inferred above. I'm sure a majority of articles about writers who write for various publications link to either the publications' listings of their writings or to one or two specific articles in the publication. I have never heard this sort of sourcing dismissed as a primary source. If this is to be a major rationale for deleting articles, we can expect deletionists to have a field day with AfDs. CarolMooreDC 23:48, 30 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 Brain Damage Films. MBisanz ^talk 02:56, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Machine Head (film)[edit]

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

Tagged for notability for 5 years; I couldn't establish notability Boleyn (talk) 19:49, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 20:10, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 20:10, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete due to lack of notability. I could not find any relevant results for this film, not even DVD reviews on horror websites (which tend not to be reliable sources anyway). Erik (talk | contribs) 20:22, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Pardon Erik, but Monsters & Critics is just where one might expect to find such a review.[72] Was not difficult to find. I'll look for more.Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 20:49, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Is there anything beyond that? It didn't show up in search results for some reason; I assume you found it via IMDb. Erik (talk | contribs) 14:13, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
More to search, certainly. I've found that many of these have searchable review databases, and some are even decently acceptable as sources. Will ignore the false positives from films about the band, dig more and advise.Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 23:47, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm fine with redirecting to Brain Damage Films; we can update machine head (disambiguation) accordingly. Erik (talk | contribs) 15:22, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Brain Damage Films. Did lots of digging, and found in in various databases,[73] but apart from the one decent review at M&C, I was unable to find any further significant coverage of this indie film. Might be fun to watch , but lacks independent notability. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 22:34, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

~~Weak Keep or~~ merge to Brain Damage Films. Per WP:PROFESSIONAL (an essay based on WP:GNG), some reviews by professional critics like Horror News and maybe cduniverse - show some fringe notability - on the doubt, it seems enough to err on the side of WP:PRESERVEing the WP:IMPERFECT article. Diego (talk) 18:28, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Strike that, the Horror News entry is for a more recent 2011 film. Diego (talk) 10:34, 23 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 01:50, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You can try this custom search to find more sources: Diego (talk) 10:34, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- http://www.google.com/cse?cx=006337113803439356310%3Aqmncn5902lc&ie=UTF-8&q=%22machine+head%22+-heavy&siteurl=www.google.com%2Fcse%2Fhome%3Fcx%3D006337113803439356310%3Aqmncn5902lc&ref=&ss=5248j1850690j25&oq=%22machine+head%22+-heavy&gs_l=partner.3...344910.350231.0.350398.23.22.1.0.0.0.260.2015.18j3j1.22.0.gsnos%2Cn%3D13..0.0.5248j1851362j25j1..1ac.1.9o6WiwoId0E#gsc.tab=0&gsc.q=%22machine%20head%22%20film%202000%20-heavy%20-music&gsc.sort=
  - Tried many such similar searches, and found myself hampered by Machine Head (band) having so much more coverage. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 18:22, 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} 02:25, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Macro-Perimeterisation[edit]

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

Tagged for notability and unref for 5 years; I couldn't establish notability Boleyn (talk) 19:50, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 20:13, 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, Courcelles 01:49, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Appears to be a vague description of a non-notable IT neologism: a concept related to the JerichoForum that involves devolving a "part" of the security of the Internet back to the Internet Service Providers (ISPs) and other network providers. No further details are provided; the article peters out in a metaphor about the transmission of cholera. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 17:18, 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 keep. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:24, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Tim Maculan[edit]

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

Tagged for notability for 5 years; I couldn't establish notability Boleyn (talk) 19:54, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 20:15, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 20:15, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 20:15, 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, Courcelles 01:48, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This person, according to IMDb, appeared in 50 episodes of Cybill and in all five seasons of Six Feet Under. Those recurring roles, in my view, are enough to satisfy WP:ENT. I'm not seeing a ton of in-depth coverage, but there's this New York Times article. Gong show 07:53, 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 Super Commando Dhruva#Enemies. MBisanz ^talk 03:02, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Mahamanav[edit]

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

Tagged for notability for 5 years and unreferenced; I couldn't establish notability Boleyn (talk) 19:57, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 20:19, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 20:19, 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, Courcelles 01:46, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Super Commando Dhruva#Enemies. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:24, 30 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 Jasper, Georgia#Events. MBisanz ^talk 03:02, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Marble Festival[edit]

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

Tagged for notability for 5 years and unref; I couldn't establish notability Boleyn (talk) 20:01, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 20:27, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 20:27, 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, Courcelles 01:44, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to a new section at Jasper, Georgia - Jasper, Georgia#Events. Worth mentioning as part of the town article but not as a standalone. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:23, 30 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 Portuguese supercentenarians. MBisanz ^talk 03:03, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Mary Marques[edit]

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

Tagged for notability for 5 years; I couldn't establish notability Boleyn (talk) 20:24, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If not notable, List of Portuguese supercentenarians contains mini-bios of other similarly-long-lived people, so you could merge there, but while living to 100 isn't enough to be notable, 110 is more impressive. --Colapeninsula (talk) 00:10, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 20:43, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Portugal-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 20:43, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 20:43, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I believe the standing consensus is that supercentenarians are not presumptively notable; they have to meet the requirements of WP:BIO in their own right. Ravenswing 06:31, 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 01:42, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of Portuguese supercentenarians. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:22, 30 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} 02:20, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Mental Madness Records[edit]

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

Tagged for notability for 5 years and uses only the subject's official site as ref; I couldn't establish notability. Boleyn (talk) 20:35, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:24, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:24, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:24, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Record label that cannot pass WP:CORPDEPTH. No independent, non-trivial sources about the label. --Ben Ben (talk) 19:54, 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, Courcelles 01:37, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete My WP:BEFORE search came back fairly quickly. Google News Archives come back with technobase.fm which has trivial mentions and cited from a Facebook fan page. General search is mostly user edited content. As such, no apparent assertion of notability, no reliable independent sources, and no seeming reliable sources available; delete seems solid. Mkdw ^talk 00:54, 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. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:12, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Rody Mirri[edit]

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

Tagged for notability for 5 years; I couldn't establish notability. Boleyn (talk) 20:36, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 21:04, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 21:04, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 21:04, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 21:04, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The italian wikipedia version was deleted in 2008, it:Wikipedia:Pagine_da_cancellare/Rody_Mirri as being a vanity page, but a review of italian newspaper sources shows he appears to be notable for questionable conduct in part, e.g., [74], [75]. He is the "Italian TV producer" referenced in Michelle Hunziker.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 14:22, 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, Courcelles 01:36, 23 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) 10:04, 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 no consensus. MBisanz ^talk 03:03, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Commons Shopping Center[edit]

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

Contested PROD. Non-notable shopping center Dough 48 72 00:34, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of West Virginia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:21, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Shopping malls-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:21, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Doesn't seem to be anything unique or noteworthy about this chopping center. Bitmapped (talk) 05:18, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep as a cursory search turns up in-depth coverage in reliable sources ([76], [77], [78], [79], etc.) but I'm unsure of the specific shopping center's impact on the region. - Dravecky (talk) 07:29, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Dravecky's sources, which I've added. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 01:39, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

These sources still do not lay claim to the notability of the shopping center. There is nothing special about AAA moving to the shopping center or a hotel being built. Dough 48 72 02:06, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The sources about the Bed Bath & Beyond store seem more than sufficient to me. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 02:48, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, as notability is not a competition and specialness is not a valid criteria. - Dravecky (talk) 02:51, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Third store in [sic] Virginia (the shopping center is in West Virginia) is not really that special. If it was the first that may lend notability. I still do not see it here. Dough 48 72 03:07, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep In addition to the sources Dravecky linked, there are sources about Martinsburg's attempt to annex the mall ([80], [81]) plus some sources in the Herald-Mail that I can't link unless I can find their archive. TheCatalyst31 ^{Reaction•Creation} 08:32, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The details about the annexation don't give enough reason why this shopping center can have an article. This detail can perhaps be mentioned in the Martinsburg, West Virginia article. Dough 48 72 22:12, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

- Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia so we've got space for articles on subjects of all sorts, as long as they meet a minimum notability threshold. - Dravecky (talk) 00:19, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - Regarding shopping centers, usually enclosed malls and large lifestyle centers are notable. Big-box power centers and strip malls are typically not notable. Dough 48 72 02:06, 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, AutomaticStrikeout (T • C) 01:33, 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 Pandit Todarmal. MBisanz ^talk 03:03, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Moksh Marg Prakashak[edit]

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

Tagged for notability for 5 years; I couldn't establish notability. Boleyn (talk) 20:40, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 21:14, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 21:16, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 21:14, 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, Courcelles 01:32, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to the author, Pandit Todarmal. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:19, 30 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 03:03, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

William Bell Montgomery[edit]

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

Tagged for notability for 5 years; I couldn't establish notability. Boleyn (talk) 20:44, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 21:22, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 21:22, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Carolina-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 21:22, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mississippi-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 21:22, 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, Courcelles 01:32, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. A check of Google Books sources seems to indicate sufficent coverage for notability to be established. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:19, 30 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) 15:39, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Moontown[edit]

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

Tagged for notability for 5 years; I couldn't establish notability. Boleyn (talk) 20:45, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The only coverage appears to be local. Nothing to indicate they meet any of the usual criteria that would lead to them being condsidered article-worthy. --Michig (talk) 21:19, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 21:28, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 21:28, 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, Courcelles 01:30, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails to establish notability, and at a read-through my brain rebelled from the plague of weasel words. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 10:43, 30 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. Salvidrim! ✉ 12:59, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Motosada Mori[edit]

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

Tagged for notability for 5 years; I couldn't establish notability. Boleyn (talk) 20:46, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 17:07, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 17:07, 18 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☆★ 17:07, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination Nick-D (talk) 23:49, 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 01:29, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Redirect to Metal Gear (series) It doesn't appear to me that Mori's notability as the military adviser for the Metal Gear series is sufficient to satisfy WP:BIO. A sentence or two that mentions his advisory role in Metal Gear (series) would be appropriate. An entire article about Mori is not. --Mike Agricola (talk) 22:01, 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 Demoniac. (non-admin closure) TBr and ley ^{(what's up)} 02:39, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Prepare for War[edit]

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

tagged for notability and unref for 5 years; I couldn't verify notability Boleyn (talk) 22:16, 16 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 16. Snotbot t • c » 22:40, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NALBUMS PianoDan (talk) 02:26, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Demoniac per WP:NALBUMS. --Colapeninsula (talk) 10:31, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 15:38, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 15:38, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge as per Colapeninsula. NealeFamily (talk) 02:30, 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, AutomaticStrikeout (T • C) 01:24, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

- Merge per above - SimonLyall (talk) 08:17, 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 WP:WITHDRAWN . (non-admin closure) ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 15:41, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

National Association of Black Geologists and Geophysicists[edit]

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

Tagged for notability for 5 years; I couldn't establish notability. Boleyn (talk) 20:57, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I found a few sources at Google News and Books. Bearian (talk) 22:29, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 11:50, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 11:50, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 11:50, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 11:54, 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 01:24, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination withdrawn per Bearian's good work. Boleyn (talk) 10:08, 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} 02:16, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

AgileGraph[edit]

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

No independent sources demonstrating notability in the article, and I can find none elsewhere. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:56, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG. I don't understand why it wasn't deleted the last time. PianoDan (talk) 00:46, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 11:59, 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 01:22, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no 3rd party reliable sources to establish notability; created by an SPA as possibly promotional. Dialectric (talk) 12:57, 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 keep. Although most articles on elementary schools are redirected to their respective school district pages per WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES, this topic appears to have an exception because it passes significant coverage requirements in reliable secondary sources, according to consensus. (non-admin closure) TBr and ley ^{(what's up)} 02:43, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Netivot HaTorah Day School[edit]

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

Tagged for notability for 5 years and unref; I couldn't establish notability. Boleyn (talk) 20:58, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:18, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:18, 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, Courcelles 01:21, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Appears to be well-known, but not particularly notable. הסרפד (call me Hasirpad) (formerly R——bo) 20:02, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. הסרפד (call me Hasirpad) (formerly R——bo) 20:05, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If it is "well-known"" it therefore notable! IZAK (talk) 21:41, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ Not notable Avi (talk) 20:12, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Striking delete due to article improvement. -- Avi (talk) 23:07, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I added a few book and newspaper references to the page, but I think that someone with access to historical information about the growth of Orthodox Judaism in northern Toronto will be able to add even more about this well-known school. Their kosher cookbook has also given them a broader geographical following. Yoninah (talk) 21:58, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The references you added are indeed reliable, but until someone comes forth with historical information, there is a definite lack of notability, as I see no in-depth coverage in the sources cited. הסרפד (call me Hasirpad) (formerly R——bo) 04:47, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - You are right, Hasirpad, and I agree with you. But I think that deleting this page would create a gap in Category:Jews and Judaism in Ontario that is taking a long time to build up. There are some additional mentions on Google Books that I did not use because I am not familiar with the history of Orthodox schooling in northern Toronto. Yoninah (talk) 13:08, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The sources added support a credible claim of notability. Alansohn (talk) 00:17, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - now meets WP:ORG. TerriersFan (talk) 03:56, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep now with better WP:RS and WP:V. As both a Jewish day school and a yeshiva having over 600 Jewish students it makes it huge and that in itself makes it a WP:N insitution, particularly with the cited references to back it up. IZAK (talk) 21:41, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: And yet, the only true in-depth coverage is in the Canadian Jewish News article[82], which fails to persuade me because it is clearly "advertorial" in tone (note the phone number provided at the end of the article) and because, if I recall correctly, the Canadian Jewish News, despite being somewhat national in scope, it is mostly a local paper (North York = Toronto, as far as their respective Jewish communities are concerned), and local coverage does not count very far for notability. הסרפד (call me Hasirpad) (formerly R——bo) 23:44, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - the WP article says "The Canadian Jewish News (CJN) is a weekly, English-language tabloid-sized newspaper serving Canada's Jewish community." If this is wrong please fix it. Even if the coverage is regional it is still a RS; we have no prohibition on regional media (as opposed to small-town papers for example) being RS. I fail to see any reason for deletion. TerriersFan (talk) 01:01, 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. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 10:45, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nike Air Pasco[edit]

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

Tagged for notability for 5 years; I couldn't establish notability. Boleyn (talk) 21:04, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non-notable. Or merge to Nike Air Max if there are any sources. --Colapeninsula (talk) 00:59, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 12:20, 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 01:20, 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 WP:WITHDRAWN . (non-admin closure) ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 15:38, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Nyman[edit]

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

Tagged for notability for 5 years; I couldn't prove notability Boleyn (talk) 21:20, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment My Finnish doesn't extend beyond ordering a beer, but Finnish Wikipedia has a page on him[83] with a few sources, and in Google Translate they look reliable. --Colapeninsula (talk) 10:55, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 12:44, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 12:44, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Finland-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 12:44, 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 01:20, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination withdrawn per Colapeninsula's good work. Boleyn (talk) 10:10, 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} 10:45, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

One Step Shift[edit]

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

Tagged for notability for 5 years and unref; I couldn't prove notability Boleyn (talk) 21:25, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 12:53, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 12:53, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, although there are a few passing mentions of the band, there is no significant coverage of the subject as outlined in WP:GNG. Moreover, subject fails WP:BAND.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 15:44, 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 01:18, 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 and redirect to Les Arcs. KTC (talk) 00:08, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Peisey-Vallandry[edit]

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

Tagged for notability for 5 years and unref; I couldn't prove notability Boleyn (talk) 21:31, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 13:41, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 13:41, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 13:41, 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 01:16, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Les Arcs, the ski resort Peisey-Vallandry is part of. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:16, 30 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 nomination withdrawn. 86.44.29.69 (talk) 22:00, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ilija Pejovski[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) 21:36, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 13:46, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Macedonia-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 13:46, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The Harvard Dictionary of Music mentions him in its article on Macedonia. While the mention is far too little in itself even to contribute to notability, one wouldn't expect even that unless the dictionary compilers had access to other reliable sources that did discuss him in some depth. Not that I have been able to find them, but perhaps someone else can. PWilkinson (talk) 18:20, 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 01:11, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I agree that the mention in the Harvard Dictionary of Music is indicative. I suspect he's pretty notable in the Republic of Macedonia, but the sources aren't easy to come by in English. I found:
- Stuff about him in these journals/ conference proceedings: Macedonian Review and Reflections on Macedonian music past and future (They're only snippet view, but they look like there might be enough there.)
- He won the 2009 Trajko Prokopiev Award, a life achievement award bestowed by the Association of Composers of Macedonia to composers and musicologists (Macedonian Information Agency)
- Quite a few articles on him in the Culture Republic of Macedonia website I assume it's a reasonably reliable source, perhaps someone familiar with the country would know more?
- Paper on him at the 2006 IRAM conference of the Macedonian Music Council (There were 6 papers devoted to "portraits of distinguished Macedonian musicians" [84])

I'm almost tempted to ignore all rules and say keep. Voceditenore (talk) 14:30, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination withdrawn Thanks for your hard work, Boleyn (talk) 10:31, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've updated the article with the new references and information and have copyedited it for encyclopedic style and tone. Voceditenore (talk) 13:13, 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} 02:15, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Jess Perna[edit]

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

tagged for notability for 5 years; I couldn't verify notability Boleyn (talk) 21:43, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 14:01, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 14:01, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 14:01, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No claim of notability per WP:ARTIST. Johnbod (talk) 15:36, 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 01:07, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as failing WP:GNG and WP:ARTIST. No sign of notability as an artist - Perna is a commercial not a fine artist, and hasn't had gallery exhibitions, monographs, scholarly articles, reviews, etc. Insufficient coverage to meet WP:GNG. --Colapeninsula (talk) 11:15, 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 WP:WITHDRAWN . (non-admin closure) ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 15:35, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Pink Lincolns[edit]

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

tagged for notability for 5 years; I couldn't verify notability Boleyn (talk) 21:47, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 14:20, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 14:20, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Not extremely notable, but notable Florida punk band, e.g., [85][86][87]--Milowent • ^hasspoken 15:11, 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, Courcelles 01:05, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination withdrawn per Milowent's good work. Boleyn (talk) 10:13, 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} 10:47, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Planetakis[edit]

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

tagged for notability for 5 years and needs refs; I couldn't verify notability Boleyn (talk) 22:02, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 14:32, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 14:32, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Band on its own label that toured clubs in Germany from 2006 to 2008. Their website hasn't been updated since then. Fails WP:BAND. --Ben Ben (talk) 18:18, 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 01:02, 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 delete. MBisanz ^talk 03:17, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Traccar[edit]

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

There are thousands of implementations of this concept, many of them open source. This one is not notable. Nic Roets (talk) 05:43, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If you agree that this traccar is not notable, then continue to look GPS tracking server. The other 2 (GpsGate and Wialon) may also meet the deletion criteria. -- Nic Roets (talk) 05:57, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand why are you keep deleting open source projects. From free and open source solutions OpenGTS is most popular and has most features, Traccar supports most protocols. If there are "thousands" implementations give me some examples of free systems. People look in Wikipedia for best solutions, and those are the best. If you know better systems, add them to article, why are trying to remove useful information without providing any alternative? --Tananaev (talk) 06:35, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As for proprietary servers, there is no shortage, but GpsGate and Wialon are universal solutions, they support dozens if not hundreds of different devices. Again, if you know better systems you are welcome to add them, but I doubt that. --Tananaev (talk) 07:09, 15 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 15. Snotbot t • c » 06:02, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You say that "people look in Wikipedia for best solutions". So before we add something to Wikipedia, we should try to confirm that it is in fact the best. One of the best ways to accomplish that is to look what independent experts say. The only people who had anything to say about traccar is you (the author) and your users. -- Nic Roets (talk) 08:21, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless reliable, independent sources can be found. So far the arguments are WP:ITSUSEFUL. If no suitable sources exist, deletion is required. Chiswick Chap (talk) 17:29, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, here is independent source for you http://sourceforge.net/directory/?q=gps%20tracking%20server. --Tananaev (talk) 23:26, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- That is not a reliable source. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 10:48, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 09:16, 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, MBisanz ^talk 01:01, 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 keep. -- Ed (Edgar181) 18:07, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Davis Schneiderman[edit]

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

Almost nothing resembling a reference or claim of notability. He's clearly a writer, but nothing here shows that he's a _notable_ writer. When a BLP article is based on such powerful sources as his own YouTube channel, rather than the robust 3rd party sources we require, then it's clearly failing to demonstrate notability. Andy Dingley (talk) 18:30, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I'm having a hard time finding sources myself, but I am finding stuff to suggest that he is rather well thought of in his niche. It's just that his type of writing isn't the sort of thing that gets a lot of mainstream press. I see where he's name dropped a ton ([88]) and I see where some of his stuff is republished in various books. ([89], [90], [91], [92], [93], [94]) I'm just not sure that this would help him pass WP:AUTHOR beyond a doubt.Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:09, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 13:55, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 13:55, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 13:55, 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) 23:57, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I think the Victoria Advocate source (which is in-depth and far from his local area) as well as a published book review that I just added (which is in-depth about one of his works) are enough for WP:GNG. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:42, 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, Courcelles 00:02, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. He clearly fails WP:ACADEMIC. And he appears to fail WP:AUTHOR. Getting mentioned in a modest feature article in small publication like the Victoria Advocate doesn't confer notability. Many of the other places he's mentioned are just glancing mentions and/or in rather obscure sources. Majoreditor (talk) 02:10, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I helped create this page some years ago, and occasionally visit or add. I am not a regular wikipedia editor, so please don't judge the subject based upon any problems with the articles or its sources.I also don't know, I guess, how to properly add this stuff, so I'll just lay it out here for now. I think, for instance, that I added Schneiderman's YouTube page at some point, not realizing how the notability works, etc. Anyway, Schneiderman is certainly an author of note in the indie publishing world that also overlaps with academia. He is a board member for the [&NOW Festival], and arranges their locations. Here is an article from Time-Out Chicago on the Lake Forest version. ^[1]. These have included the Sorbonne, and, coming up, UC Boulder. ^[2]. He is the head of Lake Forest College Press and runs the Plonsker Prize ^[3], which is one of the largest writing prizes in the country with no entry fee, $10,000. He has collaborated with [DJ Spooky] ^[4]. He has been on [Chicago Tonight] ^[5] talking about college tips, and he blogs for the Huffington Post ^[6]. He is a noted scholar on William S. Burroughs, having edited the book about Burroughs mentioned on this page. He also contributed to the Naked Lunch @50 book, wrote the Burroughs entry for The Companion To Twentieth-Century Literature ^[7], and writes elsewhere on Burroughs (here, in a review, for instance ^[8]). I suppose none of this is the same as being Jonathan Safran Foer or whomever, but Schneiderman _is_ a figure in the small-press and academic world. Here he is at the Chicago Writer' Conference at the Tribune Tower ^[9]. I've seen reviews of his work in the major small-press outlets, American Book Review and Rain Taxi, for instance. I am not sure how to best add this sort of stuff into the article, so am open to any advice or further discussion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mediahash (talk • contribs) 15:44, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - he seems notable enough as an academic editor, also full prof at respectable liberal-arts college. Bearian (talk) 00:37, 23 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 01:01, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep per David Eppstein. Our notability criteria are not meant to measure a subject's overall importance alone, but are more inclusive: if somebody is important enough to have extensive impact, they should definitely have an article, but so should anybody to whom enough information has been paid to write a proper article (this is the gist of things like WP:AUTHOR and WP:GNG). The subject appears to meet WP:AUTHOR. Ray^Talk 03:08, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Not the strongest case. But there is enough there IMHO on which to base a keep !vote.--Epeefleche (talk) 23:41, 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. The most relevant argument for deletion is probably WP:NOT#NEWS, for this is mostly a "fun news" story, albeit one that has been recurring for a few years. This argument has a great deal of merit, and indeed my personal view is that the subject does not pass the WP:EVENT criteria, for I think a stories like this fall into the category of "stories lacking lasting value such as "water cooler stories,". But that is a guideline, not a hard-and-fast policy. The verifiability requirements are met, and with a significant portion of the participants arguing that the recurring nature of subject, as documented by Arxiloxos, is sufficiently enduring, I have no choice but to declare that there is no consensus here. Sjakkalle (Check!) 06:23, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Snowzilla[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Removed PROD per WP:PROD (previous AFD exists) Reason given in PROD was: No reliable sources. No claim to notability. BLP concern related to Billy Powers. At best a local news item in a small town, if it is not a hoax. Illia Connell (talk) 17:09, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as prodder. Do we have any standards? Kiefer.Wolfowitz 17:35, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

delete OK, we have a an article about A BIG SNOWMAN IN SOMEONE'S YARD???? Look, even if this showed up on teh Today show during the weather segment, it isn't notable. Maybe if someone built a giant snowman in the desert and doused it in gasoline and set it on fire while thousands of people had a big party around it every year, then it might be notable. Not this. Mangoe (talk) 17:40, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails notability guide lines and is really not fit for inclusion. As per WP:EVENT this does not have lasting effect and there is no depth of coverate or Geographical scope. - Pmedema (talk) 18:31, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per above comments. FrigidNinja (talk) 21:36, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. For the reason stated by Whpq in the first AfD, which I quote here: "As silly as it is, this snowman has garnered notoriety, and has been covered in press beyond its own locality of Anchorage, and that coverage has been sustained over multiple years. See MSNBC Dec 2005, Anchorage Daily, dec 2006, Washington Post, Jan 2007, Seattle Times, Dec 2008, Charlotte Observer, Dec 2008, Alaska Dispatch, Dec 2009." And we can add this 2008 National Public Radio report[95]. It's unfortunate that no one added these sources to the article after the first AfD closed, but the coverage exists, and has been extensive, recurring, and not merely regional. --Arxiloxos (talk) 23:33, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 10:23, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Alaska-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 10:23, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete An absolute failure on the notability scale. A big snowman that gets mentioned as the "joke/light" news elsewhere is not worthy, and serves to demean the residents of the community rather than be a serious article (✉→BWilkins←✎) 11:05, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment 1) Re: nom's mention of BLP concerns - as was previously mentioned on the talk page, Google Street View clean avoids that whole block. Never mind that it's not really so hard to find the damn thing anyway (two blocks away from where I lived for much of the 1990s), which revists the question "If the real information is elsewhere, then what do I need Wikipedia for?" that I've asked too many times and have yet to receive a satisfactory answer for. 2) I would presume lasting significance to be one of the measuring sticks for an article to remain a part of the encyclopedia. Billy Ray Powers ran for mayor of Anchorage in response to all the publicity he received. As viewed here, Powers received all of 133 votes (0.23%) out of over 58,000 cast for his trouble. Not what I would consider lasting significance. Now, as for Bwilkins's comment, compare this with another Anchorage-related article, that of the Anchorage Unitarian Universalist Fellowship. While AUUF can perhaps claim independent notability, the article really fails to convey that. Instead, the article was created to rehash the national headlines the congregation received once upon a time for about five minutes, over a practice which they had customarily carried out for decades anyway. And there the article continues to sit in essentially that same state, nearly five years later. Bet that if I AfD'ed it, "a mob" would show up to defend the article from deletion, yet these same editors wouldn't lift a finger to actually improve the article. Seen it with too many AfDs already. RadioKAOS – Talk to me, Billy 05:34, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - My opinion from Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Snowzilla still stands. -- Whpq (talk) 19:17, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Meets WP:GNG through coverage in books and news articles. Also, this children's book would seem to be based on the story. As Arxiloxos has shown, coverage is persistent and has geographical scope, making this meet WP:EVENT as well. This isn't a hoax and I'm not seeing evidence of a violation of BLP or that this article is being used a coatrack to demean the community's residents. Gobōnobō ⁺ ^c 23:01, 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, MBisanz ^talk 00:59, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This article appears to non-notable in reliable sources for significant coverage requirements, and it is just a snowman. TBr and ley ^{(what's up)} 02:56, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Can you clarify your statement? The sources meet reliability, or are you claiming that publications like the Washington Post and Seattle Times are unreliable? The sources meet significant coverage being the main topic of these articles or are claiming that the Alaska Snowman is actually about something else? -- Whpq (talk) 04:24, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Snowman#World's largest snowman which could use some more examples of large snowmen. The Guinness Book of Records tracks this and the previous record holder, Angus, had the following impressive stats:

Height 113 ft. & 7 inches tall
9,000,000 lbs
200,000 cubic feet of snow
4 ft. wreathes as eyes
6 ft. of chicken wire & muslin for the carrot nose
6 automobile tires as the mouth
20 ft. fleece hat
120 ft. fleece scarf
3 skidder tires for the buttons
2 – 10 ft. trees for arms

Warden (talk) 08:19, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Passes the WP:GNG and WP:N. WP:GNG does not discriminate based on the nature of the topic. It is the Seattle Times, the Washington Post, National Public Radio, etc., that identify this topic as being worthy of attention. The other issue is whether or not the topic fails WP:NOT. As far as it being indiscriminate info, I don't see any complaints here that we already have too many articles about Alaskan artwork that has attracted sufficient attention over a period of years so as to be declared a public nuisance. Unscintillating (talk) 02:29, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral Suggestion to improve article: add photos of Snowzilla. It would add to the credibility of the topic.--Jvanek01 (talk) 06:49, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Already tried. I couldn't find anything available under the appropriate license. I haven't heard anything about its current status, but it's been a number of years since I've had any reason to fly or drive to Anchorage on the spur of the moment in the middle of winter. Therefore, if they're still building it, I need a better reason to go there than just to get a photo. Since much of nothing has been spoken of its current status, it may require something approaching real work to figure things out should I happen to have reason/opportunity to travel there. RadioKAOS – Talk to me, Billy 07:28, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep All the sources Arxiloxos listed, except perhaps for the Charlotte Observer (which 404s), are in-depth and reliable, and as a result any two would reach WP:GNG. I'm suspicious of the applicability of WP:EVENT, but continuing coverage over years, and geographical scope are evidenced by that range of sources as well. --j⚛e decker ^talk 05:04, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Can't say I'm impressed with the article, but it meets the guidelines.--Kubigula (talk) 04:23, 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. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 10:49, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Raxola[edit]

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

tagged for notability for 5 years; I couldn't verify notability Boleyn (talk) 22:19, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete per WP:BAND and a stronger delete per WP:TNT and WP:BACKLOG. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 23:06, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 14:58, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Belgium-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 14:58, 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 00:58, 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. Mark Arsten (talk) 15:37, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

DishCOMM[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) 17:31, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 10:30, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 10:30, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment ~~Speedy keep #2~~ deletion spree. Unscintillating (talk) 04:06, 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. Boleyn (talk) 09:07, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

An AfD volunteer has read the article. Turns out there were no references in the article. Did you look at this article before nominating it? Notability is still undetermined, but with no references the point is academic. Unscintillating (talk) 03:11, 24 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 00:58, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Unreferenced article is about a technology used by the satellite television provider Dish Network. It uses the electrical wiring in a home to connect satellite receivers to one another for the purpose of sharing phone connectivity.... Dish Network is a possible redirect option, but nothing here suggests that this tech service they offer has made the kind of history that would get it into an encyclopedia. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 17:22, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No reasonable claim of notability, no references and I'm not finding any that could help this subject meet notablity guidelines. RadioFan (talk) 14:49, 30 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} 02:13, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Guided meditation[edit]

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

Article reads like an advert. The "Guided Meditation Technique" section reads like a how-to guide. It makes some dubious claims that probably violate NPOV ("the sacred state of consciousness that is achieved from meditating has the power to produce a variety of benefits to one’s self") and the references section looks similarly dubious. It might be worth having an article on the subject but I don't think the article as it currently exists can be salvaged. Fragglet (talk) 17:41, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and Stubify: Guided meditation in and of itself is a very notable topic. A Google Books search on the phrase returns 20,900 results; more specific searches like "guided meditation" + Oxford and "guided meditation" + encyclopedia demonstrate that numerous WP:RS exist that discuss the topic. However, I agree that the article as it currently stands fails WP:NPOV and it needs to be drastically reworked to bring it up to Wikipedia standards. --Mike Agricola (talk) 17:52, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Mike Agricola has demonstrated the notability of the topic; this article and topic clearly have WP:POTENTIAL. I agree that the article has problems with a non-neutral point of view, is essay-like in places and the references are weak. But with very notable topics, the best approach is to stubify and allow others to build a better article. WP:POTENTIAL policy recommends against deletion if it can be avoided. Mark viking (talk) 21:06, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spirituality-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 10:36, 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, MBisanz ^talk 00:57, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep concept is highly notable, as distinct from other forms of meditation, has been researched [96]. related to Guided imagery, and hypnosis [97] as used by cancer patients [98]. best known as used in eastern religion, but also used in other traditions [99]. current content is obviously promotional. I believe this can be rewritten and still be more than a dictionary definition, though stubifying it with links to meditation, guided imagery, etc is fine.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 08:25, 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. Nominator has withdrew their nomination. (non-admin closure) TBr and ley ^{(what's up)} 06:52, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Risk-return spectrum[edit]

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

tagged for notability for 5 years; I couldn't verify notability Boleyn (talk) 22:19, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 15:01, 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 00:57, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Searching for "risk-return tradeoff" (a more common name for it than risk-return spectrum) at Google scholar yields 3,850 hits and at Google books, 13,000 hits . This is a highly notable topic and a fundamental part of modern portfolio theory. The article itself has some serious problems: it is essay-like, doesn't cite or contain sources and much of the article discusses an extended set of examples of of different risk-return tradeoffs with respect to various financial instruments rather than the concept of risk-return tradeoff. But these are surmountable problems WP:SURMOUNTABLE and the topic has potential WP:POTENTIAL. Both of these policies indicate that the article should be kept in some form. Mark viking (talk) 01:42, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination withdrawn Thanks, Mark viking, for your hard work. Boleyn (talk) 10:36, 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 keep. Nomination withdrawn with no non-keep !votes. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 09:16, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Gudivada Engineering College[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) 20:27, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 13:17, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 13:17, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep An educational institution., Also count the alternative name Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL --Tito Dutta (talk) 02:00, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Verified tertiary educational institution. It is normal for us to keep these. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:18, 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, MBisanz ^talk 00:56, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination withdrawn Thanks for your comments, Boleyn (talk) 10:01, 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 keep. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 10:49, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dominica: Charting a Future for Paradise[edit]

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

Subject film does not appear to meet the notability requirements of Wikipedia:Notability (films). It won an award at the Third World Independent Film Festival but I don't believe that recently-minted festival constitutes a major one. JohnInDC (talk) 22:30, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article or stand-alone list." The film has been the topic of several articles from reliable sources that are independent of the subject across a significant stretch of time. It has shown in four countries and six cities at various events and festivals, including a private screening in Dominica which included the then-President of the Commonwealth, Nicholas Liverpool, and other local officials. Wikipedia is a place to catalog things of import and this film is the first of its kind to come out of Dominica. This makes it notable and therefore warrants its inclusion in Wikipedia. Retrooo —Preceding undated comment added 23:28, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 15:15, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Caribbean-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 15:15, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 15:15, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per meeting WP:NF, even if only just, as a "documentary short film about the history of the Commonwealth of Dominica". It being generally WP:UNKNOWNHERE is not a valid reason for deletion, as long as it has enough coverage elsewhere to be determinable as notable.[100][101][102][103][104]. Notability is not limited to only feature-length films made and distributed by the major studios. An independent short film determinable as notable (even if only to) the Commonwealth of Dominica can be notable enough for Wikipedia. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 21:34, 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 00:55, 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. Mark Arsten (talk) 15:37, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Muhafiz (weapon)[edit]

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

Article was previously deleted at Prod. There is no indication this weapon system is notable. I have not been able to find any reliable sources about it. Not notable. GB fan 00:52, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - can find virtually nothing about it, have to conclude it isnae notable likes ---- _nonsense ferret 02:43, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:00, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:00, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. While the system is certainly notable, this article carries the distinct smell of vanispamcruftisement. Would have a strong hunch the image is copyvio too. WP:TNT. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:35, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I don't know that I'd agree with the idea that the weapon system itself is notable - I can find no record of any major export sale or significant deployment within the Turkish armed forces, although admittedly I might be running into a language issue. According to my personal assesment of how these things are documented in Wikipedia, a weapon system seems to be notable merely for being in widespread use within a military establishment, or has generated some type of non-trivial and non-routine news coverage (export sales stories and the like). This seems to have neither, so it would fail basic WP:GNG. Probably a case of WP:TOOSOON. I would recommend a redirect but the title is awkward at best to be considered a plausible search term and the article isn't old enough to merit it. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 19:51, 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. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:10, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

MarketLive, Inc.[edit]

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

Non-notable company lacking ghits and Gnews of substance. References are mostly press releases. Appears to fail WP:COMPANY. reddogsix (talk) 00:44, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Agreed, a Google News search found one recent press release here but a Google News archives search immediately provided press releases, with some non-press releases here (for a new CIO in 2008), here (for a new CEO that same year), here (also mentions the new CEO), here (brief mention for sales percentages which briefly mentions CEO Mark Pierce), here ($20M in funding from investors), here (a new agreement with Omniture, narrowly reads like a press release) and here (announcing MarketLive 5). The press releases continue page after page which outweighs the few good sources. Too much of this article's content is promotional and is obviously from the company's website (like the press releases). Google Books found this which seems to talk about the history and the founder but aside from that, nothing else useful. Considering the article lists so many partners, I would have expected in-depth and significant coverage and better achievements. This AfD can run its course but I think the article may be criteria for speedy deletion G11. SwisterTwister talk 03:04, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:56, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:56, 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 Canada–Mali relations. MBisanz ^talk 03:04, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Embassy of Mali, Ottawa[edit]

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

fails WP:ORG and WP:GNG. embassies are not inherently notable. unless there is something notable about the building or what the actual embassy does. those wanting to keep must show third party sources. LibStar (talk) 00:06, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. AdventurousSquirrel (talk) 05:59, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. AdventurousSquirrel (talk) 05:59, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Firstly, I'm not entirely sure if WP:BEFORE has been committed. Almost every embassy of a major sovereign country will have reliable sources. I've done some work to the article, added some historical information about the building and expanded on the general purpose of the diplomatic mission. Secondly, WP:ORG seems like an inappropriate policy to cite. Technically the embassy is a branch of the foreign department of the government. I think you're more implying the building and no so much the actual foreign government. Also, the embassy holds special diplomatic status and legally recognized by both countries as sovereign foreign soil (WP:NGEO). Lastly, while not listed at WP:OUTCOMES, they're generally seen as notable and that the problem of sourcing is a surmountable problem. Mkdw ^talk 22:24, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

yes we should use previous outcomes, embassies are not inherently notable and have been previously deleted Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Embassy_of_Serbia,_Minsk. LibStar (talk) 00:08, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What about these 'keep' AfD's:

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Embassy of Belgium in Ottawa

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Embassy of the United States in Dublin

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Embassy of the United States in Oslo

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Embassy of Laos in Moscow

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Embassy of Angola in Moscow

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Embassy of Mexico in Berlin

Regardless I think the article's references and sources at present are more than enough for warrant a keep of the article on its own notability grounds. Mkdw ^talk 00:23, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

many have been redirected too, you can't say they have 100% inherent notability. LibStar (talk) 00:30, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Outcomes was my last point in my argument. The first two are still by far the most important and based in Wikipedia policy; I've improved the article with independent sources about the building as well as many reliable official sources (mostly on information not controversial per WP:PRIMARY). I never said 100% inherently notable, but that they are generally seen as notable and most cases they have been redirected as a result of little to no content. I'm sure this article would have as well if not improved. I'm simply stating that it seems most of them are about their the current state of the article as a stub and not so much about the actual subject. Very few delete arguments are based around non-notable WP:ORG. Mkdw ^talk 00:33, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Canada–Mali relations. I've seen no evidence that embassies are inherently notable, and it would fit the theme of Canada–Mali relations which isn't a great article but is certainly in-depth. --Colapeninsula (talk) 11:28, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've updated the article to talk about the building history supported to reliable and independent coverage. Such information would seem inappropriate for the article Canada–Mali relations. Mkdw ^talk 20:14, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

and information about a different embassy is inappropriate for this article. Otherwise all embassy articles should be filled with info on events in other embassies. LibStar (talk) 09:27, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:54, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per Cola. Perfectly Ok to save this material via merging. Bearian (talk) 23:39, 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.