< 28 March	30 March >

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 10:12, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Mikaela Phillips[edit]

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

This biography appears to be about a non-notable actress. None of the sources provided qualify as reliable sources for the purpose of notability, and none of the work she has done would qualify her as a notable actress. I cannot find anything on Google that would change my opinion. Someguy1221 (talk) 23:19, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and per the fact that this person isn't going to try to improve the article. gwickwire^talk_editing 23:23, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no reliable sources, no notability. Was prodded for these reasons, prod removed by the author without improvement. Huon (talk) 23:24, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:01, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:01, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

delete probable WP:AUTOBIO and blatant self promotion. LibStar (talk) 00:52, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Not notable enough; none of the films the actress has acted in have Wikipedia articles on them, no reliable sources in the article and even a Google search gives nothing remarkable. smt cha hal 03:47, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:N. The subject does not appear in Google News searches and regular Google searches yield only Twitter accounts. Rotideypoc41352 (talk) 23:41, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, the claim of notability seems to centre around a single appearance in a bit role on a notable TV series, and some promotional work for something called "Magic Wars". Unfortunately, I don't buy that argument. There is no secondary coverage of this person or the role she has played that I can find, which leads me to conclude this person doesn't meet WP:N just yet. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 00:13, 31 March 2013 (UTC).[reply]
Delete For the same reasons identified above.Kabirat (talk) 09:08, 5 April 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 incubate. The page can now be found at Wikipedia:Article Incubator/The Hospital (2013 film) J04n(talk page) 10:18, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Hospital (2013 film)[edit]

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

Inadequately sourced article about a 2013 film that was apparently released in 2012. I'm unable to find any reliable, independent sources with which to establish notability per WP:NFILM. I was only able to find self-published sources. - Mr X 01:35, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:40, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The film had its world premiere today (3/22/13) in Dortmund, Germany. A quick web search brought up three different reviews and several reports from independent film and horror websites, including Ain't It Cool News. http://www.aintitcool.com/node/61583#4 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Accusingbridge (talk • contribs) 02:42, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The big issue here is finding sources that Wikipedia would consider to be reliable. AICN is definitely usable, but so far most of the reviews I'm finding are by blog sites that are considered to be non-notable. There is some chatter about it on some of the horror sites, but most of those articles are almost entirely taken from PR, making them little more than primary sources. The IndieGoGo isn't really usable either, as it also seems to be a primary source at best. I'm leaning towards incubating this unless more sources don't become visible by the end of the AfD. There's just enough out there to show that more sources could become available in the near future, but barring their actual appearance, this doesn't quite pass notability guidelines yet and we can't keep films based on coverage they may or may not get. I'm still searching though, mind you. 03:35, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

Incubate per my argument above. There's the AICN review, which is helpful, but so far the sparse coverage in RS are based upon press releases or just reprint them verbatim. There is the hope that since they posted the PR, that some of these sites might give it a review sometime soon, so I'm suggesting incubation until that point. I want to note that getting PR reprinted isn't a guarantee that the sites would review anything, mind you. I've seen BD and the other sites republish PRs, yet give no actual coverage of the film beyond that. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 03:55, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Incubate I've corrected the article per MOS:FILM to reflect the film's FIRST release date of October 31 2012 and, following upon work done by Tokyogirl79, performed some minor cleanup and sourcing.[1] Since it is now circulating in horror festivals, it has received attention from less acceptable genre sites, yes... but as such acceptable ones such as Dread Central, Bloody Disgusting and Ain't It Cool News have decided to pay it attention, we can certainly incubate this for a short time to see if it gains a little respect from other horror genre websites. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 07:11, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per significant coverage. LenaLeonard (talk) 17:51, 25 March 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) 22:49, 29 March 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) 10:21, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Bright Capital[edit]

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

WP:NN company failing WP:CORP. There are a few PR pieces and an article or two talking about where money was placed but nothing satisfying WP:GNG or CORP Toddst1 (talk) 22:40, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:37, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:CORP....William 01:28, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable. Although the company gets quite a few hits at Google News Archive, they are not significant coverage, mostly just mentions. --MelanieN (talk) 03:01, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete For the same reasons identified above.Kabirat (talk) 09:09, 5 April 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) 10:21, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Cream Delight[edit]

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

No assertion of significance. Should be speedy deleted. Barney the barney barney (talk) 21:47, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - It's not eligible for speedy deletion, but as far as I can tell, the lack of available sources providing in depth coverage means that the subject is not notable, except perhaps in some cookbooks. - Mr X 22:27, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. - Mr X 22:28, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. - Mr X 22:28, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No attempt made to provide any evidence. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 23:32, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not notable. Snappy (talk) 17:26, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Found mentions only in sources from Google books. Not finding any in-depth coverage. Northamerica1000^(talk) 18:54, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete For the same reasons identified above.Kabirat (talk) 09:09, 5 April 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) 10:22, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

PeerScholar[edit]

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

Fails Notability requirements for product or web site. This teaching tool has only been written about, in published reliable sources, by its own developers or publisher, or those connected with the University of Toronto. The article is largely written by the professor's own students, who will probably turn up here to defend it. Colin°^Talk 21:39, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Keep - I was only able to find one reliable source here: [2], but combined with the sources already in the article, I believe this is a sufficiently notable subject per WP:NSOFTWARE. (There may be a better guideline than NSOFTWARE, but since PeerScholar is described as an online tool, it seems to be appropriate in absence of a better guideline.) - Mr X 22:45, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please read the proper Notability guideline, not an essay. We need significant third-party secondary sources. The article just cites publications by the authors of the software. I can't read the whole Highbeam article, but what is available (after the "According to recent research from Toronto, Canada") is entirely quoted text, presumably from a press-release. So this isn't third-party and independent. Colin°^Talk 23:15, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:33, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:33, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:33, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A more careful examination of the sources has convinced me to change my !vote. The article sources seem to all be primary sources and the source that I found on HighBeam seems to be the result of a press release or similar promotional publication. - Mr X 00:38, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nom. The only neutral reference source (non primary) offered for the product (i.e. not the product's creator or its publisher) is Journal of Plastic, Reconstructive & Aesthetic Surgery which has no info. Star767 (talk) 00:44, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not notable. Article appears to have been edited by multiple throwaway accounts with similar editing patterns to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Kynatalie from the University of Toronto so there may be a COI issue also. --Kkmurray (talk) 00:22, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It is actually this class here from the U of T [3]. There are 1700 students all told to do the exact same thing (make two edits to Wikipedia). The program in question "PeerScholar" was written by their prof which is why we see all these students editing it. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 00:58, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: as a NN product / borderline advertisement. Toddst1 (talk) 22:44, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
We are not being honest with our readers that the sources have conflict of interest per Wikipedia:Third-party sources#Non-independent sources. Delete because it seems to be an advertisement and is based mostly on sources with COI. Algébrico (talk) 03:29, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete For the same reasons identified above.Kabirat (talk) 09:09, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete per CSD G3. Was deleted by User:Reaper Eternal. (Non-administrator discussion closure.) Northamerica1000^(talk) 10:39, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Kevin G Smith, Jr.[edit]

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

This autobiographical article about a 15-year-old "self made mega millionaire" is a hoax. (Congratulations to Ducknish (talk) who spotted and tagged it). From the last reference it seems Smith did indeed make a TV show, or was concerned in making one; but everything about his "Kevin Smith Organization" is fantasy. The first reference, in CNN iReport, is written by him (and is marked "not vetted by CNN"). The second and third are to the organization's website which, like most such hoaxes, is short on details that could be checked, like a street address or telephone number, but makes grandiose claims, most of the words on this page being copied from Goldman Sachs. The fourth and fifth are press releases via free press release distribution websites. Searches find a lot of energetic self-promotion in blogs, Facebook, Twitter and the like, and some sites repeating the press releases, but absolutely no independent reliable sources. JohnCD (talk) 21:33, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. JohnCD (talk) 21:41, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. JohnCD (talk) 21:41, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete, speedy G3 if possible. Aside from the television show item, which does nothing to show any actual notability, this is self-promotional tripe that violates WP:V. --Kinu ^t/_c 23:41, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

After further review, I've gone ahead and tagged this with ((db-g3)), since it's pretty obvious that there is zero plausible information here. --Kinu ^t/_c 03:21, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Totally lacking in coverage in independent, reliable sources that would support the claims. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 23:59, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per my thoughts on the talk page: "This strikes me as a likely hoax. The only sources are a press release, his website, and an "iReport" on CNN which appears to be user submitted. I can't help but think if there was a 15 year old with over 100 million dollars I would have heard about it somewhere else." I see this as a very, very likely hoax, and better safe than sorry in this case. Ducknish (talk) 02:52, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

iReports are indeed user-submitted and not vetted. To quote it, "So my biggest question to Media outlets that my team and I have sent press releases regarding my story on how I became a mega - millionaire, is why aren't you covering the story?" It's nice to know we're not the only ones that recognize WP:BOLLOCKS when we smell it. --Kinu ^t/_c 03:29, 30 March 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 Channel bonding#Broadband. J04n(talk page) 10:23, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Broadband_bonding[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Broadband bonding

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

Reasons for deletion:

Couldn't find any reliable sources for the topic (Notability requires that verifiable evidence be provided)
It looks like an advertisment of some single product feature (not a standard or common feature) (Propaganda or advertising)
The single link in "references" seems to be broken

--Morkow (talk) 20:37, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:24, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

redirect This is a notable topic (sources are probably more common as "DSL bonding" or "channel bonding"), however we have almost no content either here or at channel bonding. There's also a case that a simply clearer article can be written under the broader scope of channel bonding. Andy Dingley (talk) 00:52, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/redirect to Channel bonding#Broadband per Andy. —Ruud 12:54, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/redirect to Channel bonding#Broadband as suggested above. I agree the encyclopedia should include some discussion of bonding, but this article is overly specific. Plus, it smells a bit spammy, I just can't quite put my finger on exactly why. — UncleBubba ^{( T @ C )} 22:24, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/redirect to Channel bonding#Broadband Though it's already on the channel bonding page, merging this information (not a copy paste over existing info)with that would provide more information/clarity to that section of the channel bonding article. Karverstudio 17:00, 2 April 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 Kaiser Permanente. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 14:38, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Kaiser Permanente Medical Center (San Leandro, California)[edit]

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

declined prod, my own article. content can be merged, but should not be deleted, should at least remain as a redirect if merge is done (which i just did anyway, to the Kaiser Permanente article, in a new section for the medical centers), as a reasonable search term. unless, of course, more sources can be found. its a really big complex being planned. Note other facilities, including new ones smaller than this, at Category:Kaiser Permanente hospitals, have their own articles. Mercurywoodrose (talk) 20:25, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:04, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:04, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:05, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is a large medical facility under construction and nearing completion. There are many newspaper articles describing it, but they are hidden behind pay walls. This article should be kept, expanded and referenced over time. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 00:10, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect I proposed the article for deletion, but standard procedure is to replace with a redirect, which we could do immediately. If the medical center was notable enough, there would be no trouble finding sources. Makes more sense to just be listed in the main Kaiser article, as Mercurywoodrose has done. If it meets notability requirements in the future, it could be converted back into a regular article. California Pacific Medical Center is a similar network of hospitals and none of its individual branches has its own article (although several have redirects). Fnordware (talk) 20:49, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Basically, i agree with Fnordware, and my main concern was that this search term not be deleted, and that it be preserved as a redirect, with its categorization and project inclusion preserved (ie its not a redirect to a more correct name, which doesnt need to be categorized aside from admin cats). I do tend to think it should stay as an article, as its opening in about a year, and I think that individual medical centers deserve separate articles, but I recognize that as it stands, its not much at all.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 18:09, 31 March 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. Disruptive nomination; speedy keep. Drmies (talk) 22:32, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ido Pariente[edit]

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

Fighter fails WP:NMMA. IronKnuckle (talk) 19:32, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep. Irrelevant. Of course. He doesn't have to. He passes wp:GNG. That is sufficient. Were you aware of that? Your nomination suggests not, as it only considers NMMA.

But in prior AfDs, you indicate a familiarity with the fact that articles must fail GNG (whether or not they fail any narrower notability criteria) to be AfD'd. As here, where your nomination resulted in a snow keep because the article in fact met GNG. And FunnyPika wrote you there "She only needs to pass one notability criteria for inclusion." And Bald Zebra wrote you there: "the sources provided ... are more than enough to satisfy the general notability guideline, regardless of whether she meets any specific guidelines or not." The same exact principle applies here (I'll ask those editors to let us know if I mis-quoted them, out of context). Suggest you withdraw the nom.

And I see, similarly, turning on GNG, your recent nomination here resulted in a speedy keep on the very day you nominated it, and was termed a "bad faith nomination" by the closing sysop. And your nomination here resulted in a speedy keep on the very day you nominated it, with Sergecross 73 writing "Appears to be either a bad-faith nominations, or someone with a terrible grasp on the WP:GNG." Same same-day speedy keep here, and at a number of your other nominations.

You were even banned from starting new AfDs because of this; a ban that expired last month. And you were also blocked -- and only unblocked because you stated that "the mistakes I made were making AfDs that were premature... I have learned now."--Epeefleche (talk) 19:59, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. While editors are encouraged to look toward Subject-specific Notability Guideliness when the primary notability guideline is failed, when the primary notability guideline is NOT failed, we need not look to various SNGs to decide that the primary notability guideline can be ignored and decide, contrary to the instruction of the primary notability guideline, that established notability does not exist. The SNGs do not overrule the GNG. What was brought to AFD for second looks is a decent article that is well-sourced, informative to readers, and which serves the project. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 20:52, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and speedy close as a misguided nomination - as MQS points out, the GNG is met, and therefore NMMA is completely irrelevant. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:13, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles 05:16, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Justin kline[edit]

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

References consist of non-independent sources (record label's site, artist's own site) and non-professional blogs. I am unable to locate significant coverage in reliable sources for this person; does not appear to meet WP:GNG or WP:MUSICBIO at this time. Gong show 17:29, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Gong show 17:31, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not notable. 069952497a^{Comments and complaints}_{Stuff I've done} 19:23, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- No luck with sources either, tried the usual, plus Highbeam--found a lot about the high school baseball player, but nothing about this fellow. --j⚛e decker ^talk 17:22, 5 April 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) 10:38, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

James Trollope[edit]

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

Seems to be WP:AUTOBIOGRAPHY. Barney the barney barney (talk) 17:17, 29 March 2013 (UTC) Barney the barney barney (talk) 17:17, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:21, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:21, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I was unable to find any independent coverage in reliable sources about this journalist. The article is the work of User:Jamestrollope whose other main contributions here are edits to Eric Slater. James Trollope has written a book about Eric Slater. Almost certainly an autobiography. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 00:23, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for failing WP:AUTHOR and WP:BOOK. Qworty (talk) 05:28, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- a badly presented autobiographical article by and about a NN journalist. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:44, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete being a journalist does not make someone notable, although some people are notable for their journalism, this person is not.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:20, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete For the same reasons identified above.Kabirat (talk) 09:09, 5 April 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. —Tom Morris (talk) 13:31, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Missed connection[edit]

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

Seems to be an essay, not encylopedic Boleyn (talk) 16:42, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I favor retention. It is clearly a phenomenon of interest, and it informs people of it. 12.and.13 (talk) 01:16, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:13, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The title needs work as I thought this was going to be about missed air/rail connections. Metro has a column for this called "Rush-hour Crush". Anyway, there are multiple books about the Craigslist variety, e.g. Missed Connections: Love, Lost and Found. Warden (talk) 11:38, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or userfy - I think it's not so bad that it needs to be blown up. Bearian (talk) 20:01, 2 April 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 withdrawn by nominator--Ymblanter (talk) 07:37, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Journal of Mundane Behavior[edit]

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

Journal that existed only briefly. Never was indexed in any selective database. There are some in-passing mentions in reliable sources (like this brief paragraph in the LA Times), but no in-depth coverage. Does not meet WP:NJournals or WP:GNG. Randykitty (talk) 16:30, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:10, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:10, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. That link points to abstracts of three LA Times articles. When you click on the links to those articles, the articles themselves are more than a brief paragraph. James500 (talk) 13:49, 3 April 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) 00:15, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:NTEMP and WP:GNG: Google News shows ample secondary coverage. —rybec 02:43, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It got plenty of coverage in the popular press during its brief existence. Most of the coverage was of the "you'll get a chuckle out of this" variety, but still, a sociology journal that gets written up in USA Today, the New York Times, and a dozen other reliable sources is notable by any standard. The article needs to be expanded and some of these sources added. --MelanieN (talk) 03:17, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Withdrawn For some reason, the article titles on the LA Times page did not seem to link to anything when I nominated this article. Now they do... Must have been some transient glitch either on the website or on my computer. It's all still a bit meager (as MelanieN says: the "chuckle variety"), but just enough, I guess. --Randykitty (talk) 07:04, 5 April 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) 10:40, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Francis Di Fronzo[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Puff piece about a non-notable artist. Only claim to fame seems to be that he once got a fellowship. Was kept for some reason when nominated earlier, despite 1 keep vote versus several deletes. R. fiend (talk) 16:24, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The fellowship itself is a local one, and there is no other information in the article to support notability. The criteria for notability for this are at WP:ARTIST, and a quick google search doesn't turn up anything that might fit any of those; he's just a guy with a job. He has exhibited his artwork, and his name does appear in some catalogues of artists with a short bio, but I'm not sure this makes him notable. --Falcon Darkstar Momot (talk) 17:02, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 22:03, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Aside from being a Fellowship recipient in 2004 (which I've now referenced into the article), all that I've found are a couple of listings mentions. They aren't enough to meet WP:ARTIST, nor I think is being one of 12 fellowship recipients in one particular year. AllyD (talk) 22:14, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:08, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete being the reciepeient of a Pew Fellowship does not grant notability. Lacks any actual meeting of notability requirements.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:09, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete in the absense of secondary sources sufficient to establish notability. Gamaliel (talk) 18:32, 4 April 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) Mkdw ^talk 09:01, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

List of Crayola crayon colors[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

The meat of this article are list of colors, all of which are unsourced and approximate. All the "sourcing" is for the fact that the products exist; even that is mostly deadlinks and links to the Crayola website. What little good information there is could be upmerged to Crayola. I am also nominating List of Crayola colored pencil colors for deletion. It has no sources at all. p b p 15:52, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:22, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:23, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:23, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As far as lists go, it works. It's limited in scope, it's notable. The article has problems. There was a lot of effort a few years ago to address them. They have not been addressed. But, "It sucks" isn't a valid reason for deletion outside of WP:NUKEANDPAVE. Although, the hex approximation of the colors does bother me. I would assume that the EXACT color is some sort of a trade secret, though.... not sure how that can be sourced. But, in the spirit of WP:PRESERVE, at the very least, it shouldn't be deleted.
Comment BTW, last time this came up for a vote, it was a speedy keep. Roodog2k (talk) 18:45, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note to the nom It looks like the pointer to the AfD discussion at the List of Crayola colored pencil colors page actually points to the 2009 AfD for this topic. I know little of the AfD protocol, or I would change it myself. --Mark viking (talk) 19:48, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This article seems to satisfy the requirements for a list-based article according to WP:LISTN: the topic as a group is notable; there have been a number of controversies over the years specifically over the color naming in the Crayola crayon products, e.g., [4], [5], [6], and [7]. There is a rather extensive history of the Crayola colors at the secondary source The Definitive History of the Colors of Crayola, . As a consequence, individual members of the lists may not need to be sourced, nor do they need to be notable. This sort of reasoning is why articles such as List of colors: A-M can continue to exist, despite many more colors, yet worse sourcing. For the purposes of verification of the color names and when these colors appeared, it is fine to use a primary source such as the web page http://www2.crayola.com/colorcensus/history/chronology.cfm Crayola Crayon Chronology]. Such information is illustrated (beautifully) at secondary sources such as The History Of Crayola Crayons, Charted. Other secondary sources found with a quick search are 120 Crayons on the Web or the crayola color schemes at colorschemer.com. So the color names are verifiable. The color representations are problematic and approximate, but all represented colors on Wikipedia are approximate because of dependence on the monitor or print medium. There is a Wikipedia:WikiProject Color that discusses these issues. Their answer is to create normalized color coordinates We may wish to follow their lead in this case. A notable topic and surmountable article problems, per WP:SURMOUNTABLE, lead me to recommend keeping the article --Mark viking (talk) 20:24, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
keep/clean - ( note I was the the nominator of the previous AfD though in hind site I was probably a bit pointy with it. ). This list itself is notable ( agree with above votes ) but the article has a lot of WP:OR issues, especially with the hex codes. These columns should be removed. There is a systemic problem with original research for color coordinates in a large number of color articles including the confusion that RGB space includes all colors. The proper way to fix this though is not to take the list articles but get it fixed on a wider scale. I tried for awhile but have mostly given up myself. PaleAqua (talk) 20:50, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but kill the hex I'd be surprised if the hex numbers are the result of anything more than someone somewhere sitting down, trying some stuff out, and saying "yeah, that looks about right," which makes it a textbook case of original research. Other than that, the content is reasonable. Regards, Orange Suede Sofa (talk) 21:03, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I believe that a bunch of numbers came from stuff like archived crayon picker page. Notice the links contain Code = hex number. I believe those numbers were what was used. Still that seems to be original research to me. Later versions of the page removed the numbers from the links and showed a simulated splotchy drawing of a crayon on a white background if I recall. Never found anywhere were the pages specifically stated that those RGB coordinates were the crayon colors, and given the fact the some of the crayon colors fall outside the typical RGB space seems wrong to use them anyways. As an additional interesting note, some crayons that are different colors actually have the same Code number on the link. For example take a look at pacific blue and blue green at the bottom of that page just left of black. PaleAqua (talk) 03:43, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As others note above, this is a notable list topic. It isn't just a list of notable things that happen to be related to each other; the relationship itself is notable and worthy of detailed analysis. Them From Space 22:02, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above Davey2010 Talk
Keep As mentioned in the previous AFD, new colors did get news coverage at the time. Dream Focus 09:44, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Reference #11 until a few weeks ago led to a Crayola website page that had pictures of the Standard Color crayons, and when you drew your cursor over the tip of the crayon, the hex code and the rgb codes appeared and these matched the codes in the list. Apparently, Crayola doesn't keep up its website very well because it is a dead link now. Keraunos (talk) 12:10, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I replaced the dead link with the original Crayola link provided by Pale Aqua (archived crayon picker page), which is apparently the original source of the hex codes on the List of Crayola crayon colors--I remember seeing this link before. So there is now no problem with the sourcing. Keraunos (talk) 12:33, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  I still think using those values is original research. It's not really much different then using a color picker to get the numbers. The reasons they had codes in the link was so that the list of chosen colors would show the approximation of the picked colors in the custom box creator shopping cart. When the page was still live if you manually went to a link with a different Code number it would show the given crayon name with the wrong color square in the shopping cart. It was basically an implementation detail that reveal approximate RGB colors. PaleAqua (talk) 15:17, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  
  Also note that the most current custom box creator does not have the hexcodes visibly listed, you have to check the webpage source you to find them as the background colors used behind the transparent images that simulate the tip of a crayon. I will note however that the online ~~Crayola~~ SureSource has been very consistent with the numbers the use over several versions of that page I've seen over the years when I spot checked them. PaleAqua (talk) 15:33, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  Addendum that page is run by a third party probably by license and not Crayola itself. PaleAqua (talk) 15:41, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Seems to meet WP:LSC, and has third-party sources that do appear to show notability for the subject. Is it the most wonderfully well-written and well-sources list ever? No, but it does seem to be notable enough to warrant keeping the article, as the list subjects are relevant enough to one another as demonstrated by the reliable sources. - Sudo Ghost 14:36, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep- Seems to meet WP:LSC, and although the hex codes as noted above can no longer be found, I would hate to lose this information. It is very handy, and it is something notable in American popular cultural history, as the references provided attest. enigma_foundry (talk) 03:02, 1 April 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) 10:42, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

United-21[edit]

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

Non-notable hotel, documented by a spammy and unreferenced article. Wikipedia is not a travel guide, that's why we now have Wikitravel. Biker Biker (talk) 15:48, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:19, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:19, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:19, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete; it's good enough to avoid being speedied as A7 or G11 (importance/spam), but not much more, and definitely neither neutral nor clearly notable. I see no reason to keep it. Nyttend (talk) 17:04, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Reason to keep. Don't understand, why you want to delete this page. There is a reason to keep this page, as much as I know about this hotel, it is internationally being considered for stay and business conferences just like Oberoi hotel and Taj Hotel...but it is in its developing process. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yadavnagendra (talk • contribs) 30 March 2013‎
Delete per nominator and Nyttend. Certainly the architecture is non-notable. --ELEKHH^T 21:19, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE: there is likely some sockpuppetry taking place on this article and also Panoramic Group. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Corbettreso and Wikimedia Commons admin noticeboard. The sooner these promo articles and sockpuppets are blocked, the better for our encyclopaedia. --Biker Biker (talk) 10:50, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Although I can't speak for WP:EN, as a CU on Commons, I can say that at least five accounts which were

Likely operated by the same person have uploaded images to Commons which appeared in this article, all of which were copyvios. One of those socks is Yadavnagendra, who made an unsigned comment above. . . Jim - Jameslwoodward (talk to me • contribs) 18:52, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE most/all of the users involved in editing this article have been blocked on Wikipedia for sockpuppetry (Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Corbettreso/Archive). --Biker Biker (talk) 18:32, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom--Robert EA Harvey (talk) 20:14, 3 April 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) 10:43, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Rasa Levickaitė[edit]

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

per WP:ANYBIO Ushau97 ^talk 15:48, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lithuania-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:18, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:18, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Found nothing to pass WP:PROF or WP:BIO (citations miniscule, lack of significant coverage, etc). Ray^Talk 20:07, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Notability not found for WP:Prof, WP:GNG. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:50, 29 March 2013 (UTC).[reply]
Delete. Notability not evident in the article and I have been unable to find sources that might help. (Msrasnw (talk) 09:30, 30 March 2013 (UTC))[reply]
Delete For the same reasons identified above. Kabirat (talk) 08:09, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete For the same reasons identified above.Kabirat (talk) 09:09, 5 April 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 previous version of the page has been restored and moved to Bilal Khan (actor), Bilal Khan has been salted. J04n(talk page) 10:52, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Bilal Khan[edit]

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

Related article Bilal Khan (singer) repeatedly recreated by sockpuppeting, blocked users, and at that time subject determined to be not-notable/speedied due to the block user etc. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bilal Khan (singer)

This article, originally about a different person with the same name. After the other article actions, one of the sock-puppeting blocked users (Sabi43) started merging content over from the other article to this one, and switching the topic of this article. This was continued by many IP editors. (See wierd hybrid revision here, with half the content for each unrelated person http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bilal_Khan&oldid=507888590)

I believe this person fails WP:MUSICBIO, they are on a reality show, they released some videos to youtube, they (without a label) released some OSTs, and are in a levis commercial. A few articles mentioning the guy in passing related to the shows etc. One interview with him in the context of being a reality show contestant (not unusual), and one decent article.

I will of course abide by consensus, and as I am involved a-priori, will largely stay out of this as I have bias due to the previous block/sockpuppetry interactions that may be clouding my judgement.

Gaijin42 (talk) 15:26, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:34, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:34, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Singer Bilal Khan (b. 1986) fails GNG. No opinion about actor Bilal Khan (1978-2010), whose page was blanked out to make room for this. Carrite (talk) 15:55, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - If this debate ends in deletion, the hijacked last version of the page about the actor should be restored. Carrite (talk) 15:58, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but revert to the original topic; article has been hijacked, originally in April 2012. The actor is notable as demonstrated by external sources in this version from January 2012, although more should be added; the singer is a separate issue and this article should not continue to be converted into one about him. Yngvadottir (talk) 15:57, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Here's at least one usable reference: "Film, TV artist Bilal Khan passes away", The Nation, August 16, 2010. The version I think should be reverted to is that of April 6, 2012. I won't do this myself since I can't find further sources, but they presumably exist in Urdu, which I can't read and thus can't search in. For an article on the still alive singer, the correct procedure is deletion review since that article was deleted at AfD, not hijacking an existing article. Yngvadottir (talk) 16:29, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE TO CLOSING ADMIN - Notice the two above votes, one keep, one delete, both are saying the exact same thing. eg - Delete the current content, and restore to the original topic. Extra care must be taken counting the !votes in this situation due to the unusual page history. Gaijin42 (talk) 16:08, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Here are some articles about Bilal Khan from two of Pakistan's largest English-language newspapers, Dawn and The Express Tribune. Actually, these are just a tip of the iceberg. I do not understand why people who are so quick to !vote 'delete' do not bother to even perform a simple search beforehand. It really helps, and lessens the burden on others too:

Hottie of the week: Bilal Khan, Source: The Express Tribune

Bilal Khan: ‘Written’ in the stars, Source: The Express Tribune

Mata-e-Jaan Hai Tu’: Composition he wrote, Source: The Express Tribune

Bilal Khan: The coming of age, Source: The Express Tribune

Bilal Khan: Acting pushed me out of my comfort zone, Source: The Express Tribune

Get the look: Off to work, Source: The Express Tribune

Up close with Bilal Khan in the US, Source: The Express Tribune

Soundcheck: Bilal Khan on Coke Studio, OSTs, tours and more, Source: Dawn

Soundcheck: “It’s what I do in my bedroom” — Bilal Khan, Source: Dawn

Mar4d (talk) 06:44, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I've just looked through the comments above and apparently, the article created 3 yrs ago in its original form was actually on another person. In that case, perhaps new article/s may be needed with disambiguation to avoid the conflict of subjects. Mar4d (talk) 06:47, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

An article which has been repeatedly recreated, deleted via AFD, (with heavy involvement of sockppuppets), and in this case hijacked a different article and had the CSD templates deleted inappropriately, does not get the benefit of the doubt. It is up to the people who want to re-create a deleted article to show that it deserves to overturn prior consensus. The fans of Mr Khan have done him a disservice by repeatedly breaking wikipedia policy in trying to promote him. Gaijin42 (talk) 13:35, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The Article is about a famous pop-singer, and it should be kept. Faizan (talk) 10:19, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Recreate the article on the actor, possibly moving to Bilal Khan (actor). If people want to recreate the article on the singer that should be done through creation of Bilal Khan (singer) after getting a consensus that that article should exist. The hijacking of this article was wrong.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:37, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. No evidence for notability under GNG, only a single weak argument made for ... possible ... inherent notability. j⚛e decker ^talk 17:27, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Rock Cottage[edit]

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

According to the article, this building was once Grade II listed (which I don't think is notable per se, as there are nearly 350,000 such buildings currently so listed in England and Wales); but I can't confirm that, and it is certainly no longer among the listed buildings in the parish. An article on this topic was twice deleted on Feb. 23 as unambiguous advertising, then was recreated on the same day in its current form. Nevertheless, the only search results I'm getting for "Rock Cottage" Mawgan are adverts for holiday rentals of the cottage; and in the absence of independent sources, this seems to fail both WP:V and WP:N. Deor (talk) 15:08, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Seems just to be a bit of advertising, the only link the cottage has to the events in the history section is that it happens to be in the area where the events took place. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Quityergreeting (talk • contribs) 15:25, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:32, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:32, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete — no indication of notability. Delete The only suggestion of notability is the "only recorded example of a traditional Cornish Cottage built on a projecting rock foundation" thing, but that sounds a weak justification. The one reference doesn't refer to the subject. After some Googling I can find no mentions beyond holiday guides. Also salt to discourage further re-creation attempts.--A bit iffy (talk) 18:54, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- I am surprised at the need for it to be delisted, as listing tends to attract grants. The section about Gear Bridge might be merged somewhere (if WP:V. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:48, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep or DeferThere is a whiff of family history, and hence OR about this. Was there any such thing as 'grade II' in the mid 50s? I thought it was all 'listed' or 'scheduled' back then. I can't find anything in Pastscape. I agree with Peter, delisting should have been unecessary (if true, that alone would nearly be notable) Sounds like garbled family history to me. But the article was only created in February. It may improve yet. Some articles carry unreferenced banners for half a decade without getting AFD'd. Why not put up unreferenced and give it a year? What's the rush? --Robert EA Harvey (talk) 20:37, 3 April 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) 10:54, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Robby (John Whitman)[edit]

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

Unsourced article about a non-notable fictional character. - Mr X 13:57, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:28, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Article is a hoax. See also Robby the Arabian Dippman and Oliver! (remake). Cindy(need help?) 17:57, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete totally lacks sources, not clear how he is in any way notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:24, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete For the same reasons identified above.Kabirat (talk) 09:09, 5 April 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. Withdrawn (non-admin closure) Mkdw ^talk 09:02, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Recursive grammar[edit]

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

This article is unsourced and was copied and flawed from Unrestricted grammar. It lacks basic information and looks fake. Zahnradzacken (talk) 12:14, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn by nominator: I hadn't thought of the informal use to be notable but I have been wrong. The article now is in a more acceptable state. --Zahnradzacken (talk) 09:27, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:26, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:27, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Snow keep - this easily meets the general notability criteria. The concept is widely used in compiler design and also theories of human language. I have added several references with extended discussions of the concept. RockMagnetist (talk) 15:35, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There are at least two senses in which this term is used. The first sense is an informal one--any grammar with recursive production rules could be called a recursive grammar. For this sense, RockMagnetist has provided a number of references. The other sense is a formal one--is there a well defined category of grammars corresponding to 'recursive languages' in the formal language hierarchy and if so, is that category called 'recursive grammars' in the literature? This is less clear and may be the source of the nom's assertion of nonexistence. I could not find such a category myself. The informal sense is notable enough and well sourced, so the article should stand, but it should be stated in the article (if true) that this is not a category in in the formal hierarchy. --Mark viking (talk) 16:34, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Good point, the informal use might be notable. However, I wouldn't know what to say besides the trivial fact that recursive rules in a grammar make some people call the grammar recursive. Also, the article's history reveals that the lemma used to be a redirect but it's not obvious where to point to. Neither of the redirection targets explain the term.

Currently, the article does however claim that the term is defined in a formal sense. This edit, which replaced the redirect by content, copied the first sentences of Unrestricted grammar and changed some words, making the whole definition ridiculous. I don't know a non-trivial definition of grammars that generate the recursive languages and unless there is one, the category cannot be considered more or less general than the class of unrestricted grammars. Even if there was a definition, this class wouldn't be part of the Chomsky hierarchy. Now, this IP-editor not only faked this article and invented a formal category of grammars which does not exist. The same day, this fake article was placed in a hierarchy in this template, suggesting there is a formal definition.

Since this discussion might make me appear too involved, I won't rewrite the article to a reasonable definition but the nonsense must not remain for much longer. --Zahnradzacken (talk) 18:54, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

True, I can't find any support for placing recursive grammar in a hierarchy of grammars. RockMagnetist (talk) 22:07, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep notable topic.--Staberinde (talk) 19:55, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I WP:BOLDly removed "recursive grammar" from the formal languages template and rewrote the stub to refer to the informal sense of recursive grammars above, consistent with RockMagnetist's added references. It is still not much more than a definition, however. --Mark viking (talk) 01:18, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your changes. Maybe with three sentences, this article has a reason to survive, so I hereby withdraw the nomination. --Zahnradzacken (talk) 09:27, 31 March 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. J04n(talk page) 10:59, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

List of Towns in North Central Province, Sri Lanka[edit]

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

Useless list, consisting solely of redlinks. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 12:04, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Not a useless list. Red links are to be made soon. See List of towns in Japan, List of towns in Alberta, List of towns in England, List of towns in Portugal and the list goes on... Many developed wikiproject countries have these articles.--Blackknight12 (talk) 12:15, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

At least for Japan, there isn't a "list of towns in Region X", which this is. They have developed articles about the regions, and the towns are in the national list. Alberta is a much bigger area than North Central Province. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 12:23, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This isn't a subjective region, This is a literal political subdivision of Sri Lanka. See North Central Province, Sri Lanka. Roodog2k (talk) 18:53, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sri Lanka-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:24, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:24, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep a proper list - where else are the names of the villages and that they politically belong to this province captured? Nowhere, that's why it's not useless contrary to the nom's assertion. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 06:07, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural Keep WP:USELESS; nomination that fails to advance a policy based argument. Mkdw ^talk 09:04, 2 April 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) Mediran (t • c) 00:08, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

List of towns in North Western Province, Sri Lanka[edit]

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

Useless list, consisting solely of redlinks. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 12:04, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Not a useless list. Red links are to be made soon. See List of towns in Japan, List of towns in Alberta, List of towns in England, List of towns in Portugal and the list goes on... Many developed wikiproject countries have these articles.--Blackknight12 (talk) 12:15, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

At least for Japan, there isn't a "list of towns in Region X", which this is. They have developed articles about the regions, and the towns are in the national list. Alberta is a much bigger area than North Western Province. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 12:22, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Would you prefer all the towns of Sri Lanka on one list?

I see no reason why it should be any different to that Japanese article you linked to, especially as Sri Lanka is far smaller. Besides, if the town doesn't yet have an article, does it really need to feature? And going back to your earlier argument about how these articles will be made soon... doesn't that fail WP:CRYSTAL (albeit in an unusual way)? Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 12:41, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well Sri Lanka and Japan have different types of subdivisions, therefore a town in Sri Lanka may not be equivalent to a town in Japan. This and the other article you nominated are not finished, there are more towns to add to this list therefore this and the other list article is still under construction. Here is a finished one to look at: List of towns in Central Province, Sri Lanka. Now imagine that many articles 9 times (as per number of provinces) on one single page...that would be impractical and contrary to wiki policy, plus dividing towns per province as opposed to nation just makes more sense. Maybe this is a better comparison see Communes of France and Lists of communes of France. Also I dont think it fails WP:CRYSTAL, in fact red links encourage editors to create that article. WP:RED--Blackknight12 (talk) 13:06, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Lukeno94, WP:CRYSTAL is about predicting future events in the world, not about predicting future content in Wikipedia. If a town merits an article, we naturally expect that it will eventually be written about (hopefully before the WP:DEADLINE by which Wikipedia has to be finished). Regardless, a list of towns in a given locale has inherent informational value (particularly if it's annotated with some basic facts about the town), and helps fulfill our function as a gazetteer. postdlf (talk) 16:28, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sri Lanka-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:23, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:23, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep a proper list - where else are the names of the villages and that they politically belong to this province captured? Nowhere, that's why it's not useless contrary to the nom's assertion. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 06:06, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural Keep WP:USELESS; nomination that fails to advance a policy based argument. Mkdw ^talk 09:05, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per my comments and everyone else's above; meritless deletion nomination. postdlf (talk) 16:28, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete per consensus -- The Anome (talk) 09:37, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Lhermite's models[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Lhermite's models

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

Non-notable concept, either original research or made up as a joke. This term does not appear in the scientific literature or indeed anywhere else. Deltahedron (talk) 11:29, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 11:40, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I can find no trace of this topic anywhere, so the nominator's assessment seems right to me. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 00:45, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The equations are patent nonsense with no explanation of the notation, semantics, or what the equations represent. Ad hoc juxtaposition of concepts like prime numbers, arrows and red and blue balls with no explanation. I could find no such thing as a Lhermite model or L'hermite model either on Google or Google scholar. --Mark viking (talk) 01:23, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as apparent nonsense. Ray^Talk 03:47, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'm inclined to think that this is just cryptically written OR which is likely to be fringe if not totally trash. Bill Cherowitzo (talk) 03:57, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete At best OR; at worst cryptic nonsense. Author has not clarified the contents or provided reliable sources, despite requests. Gandalf61 (talk) 08:37, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Wikipedia is not for things made up one day. Sławomir Biały (talk) 13:55, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The formulae appear to be based on a primality criterion derived from Wilson's theorem. They also appear at ht:Lainé Jean Lhermite Junior rather clearly indicating a case of OR. Deltahedron (talk) 21:41, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Request of the ending of the discussion

Thanks for helping this article to get better.

Could you give a new hand? Could you edit the formulas that concern Mersenne's Prime Numbers located at : ^[1] ?

^ http://www.boule.cle.net.ht/Mersenne.htm

— Preceding unsigned comment added by L2j2 (talk • contribs) 22:01, 1 April 2013‎

It seems from this that the article is indeed the author's original research: "If no reliable third-party sources can be found on a topic, Wikipedia should not have an article about it. If you discover something new, Wikipedia is not the place to announce such a discovery." Deltahedron (talk) 06:36, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Couldn't find anything -- does not meet WP:GNG. Mkdw ^talk 09:05, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as not meeting WP:GNG. While I'm not a practicing mathematician, this certainly looks to me like WP:OR. -- The Anome (talk) 01:09, 3 April 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. Please feel free to create an appropriate redirect in its place. —Darkwind (talk) 03:26, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Kanpei[edit]

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

A dab page that consists of one entry that doesn't match (and is listed in its own proper dab page) and a redlinked entry which is not mentioned in its accompanying bluelink. There are a couple of fictional characters (apparently most notably Hayano Kanpei in Chūshingura), but none have their own articles. Clarityfiend (talk) 01:22, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The reason for this redirect is that 寛平 may be read as either Kanpyō or Kanpei (and also Kanbyō, Kanbei). (This info is in the first line of the article.) I have since semi-retired from Wikipedia, but at least previously this type of redirect was desired. Recommend soliciting WP:MOS-JA for comments. Bendono (talk) 05:49, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Then wouldn't it be better to redirect to Kanpyō? Clarityfiend (talk) 07:45, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That would be fine with me. Bendono (talk) 08:13, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:24, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:24, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The redlink has a page on the Japanese Wikipedia [8] and an Italian stub [9]. That might be worth looking into. Funny ^Pika! 18:28, 15 March 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) 09:37, 22 March 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) 10:41, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This name is more in Japanese usage in reference to Guan Ping rather an obscure Emperor with a reign of only nine years. If there is a redirect, it more properly should go to the son of Guan Yu. However, I see no merit in this dab page and prefer to see it binned. Jun Kayama 03:03, 1 April 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) 11:01, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Charlie (pornographic actress)[edit]

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

Fails PORNBIO and GNG. Even if sourced, her two awards in scene-related categories do not result in notability. Given her common name the searches could be quite difficult, but I found anything. Cavarrone (talk) 20:07, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:15, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:15, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Vacuous, unsourced piece. Clear GNG failure. Only "awards" are for group humping. Carrite (talk) 02:02, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Poorly sourced biography. I can't find any reliable source coverage to pass GNG. Fails PORNBIO with only scene-related awards. • Gene93k (talk) 02:22, 23 March 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, J04n(talk page) 10:09, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relist rationale: The page's creator was never notified of this discussion. J04n(talk page) 10:10, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

...that is something not requested from our deletion discussion rules ([10], [11]) nor it is a valid argument for relisting a discussion for WP:RELIST. Cavarrone (talk) 10:28, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not notable; IMDB is not a proper source. 069952497a^{Comments and complaints}_{Stuff I've done} 13:23, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per just about all of the above. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 17:40, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not notable. Reliable sources? Icarus of old (talk) 18:06, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per Nom! BO | Talk 17:36, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete For the same reasons identified above.Kabirat (talk) 09:10, 5 April 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 speedily deleted by User:Deb under criterion A10. (non-admin closure) • Gene93k (talk) 10:33, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Types of Delicacies[edit]

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

Delete, we do not need a non sourced list of random delicacies, this is and can be easily covered at the specific country pages. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 09:35, 29 March 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) Mediran (t • c) 00:06, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Doug Derraugh[edit]

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

Lacks notability. Relevant policy here: WP:NHOCKEY ♦ Tentinator ♦ 07:53, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 10:41, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 10:41, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Meets WP:NHOCKEY by playing in the DEL which is the top pro league in Germany and the top pro league in Austria. -DJSasso (talk) 15:19, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Derraugh was the 2010 NCAA Division 1 Coach of the Year — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.239.167.187 (talk) 16:12, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: While I disagree that the German league is a top-flight league as we define at NHOCKEY, it's at least a second-tier league where 100 games is the qualifier, and the subject played over four hundred games in the German, Austrian and Italian leagues. More to the point, he played 29 games in the SM-liiga, which is a top-flight league and is an automatic qualifier on that front alone. Ravenswing 22:01, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per above. Patken4 (talk) 02:09, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I really like User:Ravenswing's arguments regarding WP:NHOCKEY. What we also have to look at is the fact that he's been the "head coach" of an NCAA team that reached the championships, won the Ivy League, and was named Division 1 (NCAA) Coach of the Year, a very prestigious award. I believe WP:ANYBIO #1 addresses that. Mkdw ^talk 09:10, 2 April 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) 11:03, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Shahzad Rizvi[edit]

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

I came across this after seeing one of his books up for PROD. I redirected that article to Rizvi's, as well as redirecting the other self-published novels he wrote, but after looking at the author's page for a little while I realized that there were a lack of sources that established notability. A search brought up nothing to show that his books are ultimately notable or that he passes notability guidelines. I'm bringing it here for further discussion rather than just PRODing it, in the hopes that there might be sources in another language. I have no issue with the original editor userfying the content, but at this point in time he isn't notable. Rizvi has written books, but they are all self-published and have received no coverage. He's worked as a professor and civil servant, but I don't see where he passes WP:PROF, WP:GNG, or WP:AUTHOR. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 06:24, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Should all the book articles that were created also be brought here so they too can have an AfD? Bgwhite (talk) 07:55, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I redirected all of them to the author's article, but I don't mind unredirecting them if you think it might be a better course of action to unredirect and bundle them here. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 09:11, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete All the books are self-published via Lulu. Unable to find anything except on social sites and book selling sites. All info from the sites are the same. His website doesn't help much. The book articles were all copyvios of his website. Looks like he received his PhD from Wayne State in 1970. His dissertation was on UNESCO television projects. The creating editor has upload alot of photos of him with famous people, such as Ronald Reagan, but there is no context to tell what he is doing except for posing for a photo. I can't find anything about the books that would make any of them notable either. Bgwhite (talk) 07:55, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 10:39, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 10:39, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 10:39, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 10:39, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

He doesn't appear to be notable as an author to me. However, these lines in the bio "Dr. Rizvi has served as a White House interpreter, and taught languages to diplomats at the Foreign Service Institute of the U.S. State Department. Since 2000, Dr. Rizvi has served the federal government in international affairs." raise some question as to his role with the government. (1) "has served as a White House interpreter" suggests more than a single instance. Would a White House interpreter necessarily be notable within the world of interpreters? If "White House interpreter" is a permanent position, then I could see an argument for notability there; just like chefs, gardeners, etc., would probably be notable if they are out of the WH. OTOH if there is an enormous cadre of WH interpreters then maybe not. (2) "has served the federal government" seems rather vague, but perhaps there's something there. So -- I'm open to hearing more information explaining the possible notability of the WH interpreter position, or just what exactly he does to "serve the federal government". If none is forthcoming then I would userify or delete. --Lquilter (talk) 20:39, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't necessarily think that a translator position is really the type of thing that would give notability. You have to have a good proficiency in the language you're translating for, but it's something you're hired to do. It's not a position that you're elected for and it's not exactly a position filled only by a few people. I don't think that someone would really have notability as the permanent gardener of the White House, so by extension the same works here. From the way things are phrased in the article, I don't think this is a permanent daily position in any case. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 03:39, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for failing WP:AUTHOR and WP:BOOK. Qworty (talk) 05:29, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As per Qworty Uncletomwood (talk) 14:23, 31 March 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. Speedied under G10, G11. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 09:17, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Civilization Jihad[edit]

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

Ludicrous piece of original research, in clear violation of WP:NPOV, WP:OR, etc. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 03:12, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The violations that are being referred to are not clear enough. Would you mind elucidating your stance a bit further? Civilization Jihad is well cited and notable enough it seems, I don't get it what the problem is. Until you elaborate your reason for nominating it for deletion I am surely more inclined to vote for keeping it. Mr T^(Talk?) ^{(New thread?)} 04:49, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- No reliable sources attest the existence of this phenomenon - the article relies on flagrantly unreliable sources like The Blaze and WorldNetDaily. When we confine ourselves to reliable sources, we find that while some of the facts may be individually verifiable, like the Holy Land Foundation trials or CAIR's opposition to anti-Muslim military training, their supposedly forming part of a vast Muslim conspiracy is obvious WP:OR and WP:POV. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 05:02, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete--actually speedy delete as G10 and G11, advocacy & negative BLP First, This is the type of original research we call synthesis, the assembly and anlysis of data from various sources to prove an hypothesis. We do not do that here; rather, we report on the notable hypotheses others have formulated and published. Thisdis because ewe here lack the scholarly or journalistic credentials to construct reasonable hypotheses,and the further scholarly or editorial credentials to give proper review to what others propose. This would be the same no matter what hypothesis were being proposed, or what opinion were being promulgated. That in the opinion of some of us this is a rather far-out position is not necessarily relevant. Were it a similarly based defense of the position of the Muslim Brotherhood from the most sympathetic of viewpoints, it would be equally inappropriate. Even were it an attempt at a balanced assessment of the issue based on its own independent and original analysis, it would be inappropriate. This role is for others. Such analyses are important and valuable, and when published elsewhere, they can be used together with all pertinent published analyses as the basis for WP articles.

Second, reading the full article once again, I realize that this is essentially a inadequately sourced negative article about living individuals and should be immediately removed. It could also immediately be removed as G11, advocacy or promotionalism; that what it amounts. to . I havedecided not to delete it single-handed myself, but I am putting speedy tags on it. DGG ( talk ) 05:18, 29 March 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) 11:03, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Shad Lierley[edit]

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

Subject is an MMA fighter who fails to meet WP:NMMA. The article has no sources except for a link to his fight record and my search turned up no significant coverage. All I found was some routine sports coverage and youtube videos. Papaursa (talk) 02:14, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Papaursa (talk) 02:14, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 10:35, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 10:35, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails WP:NMMA. IronKnuckle (talk) 19:28, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note -- IronKnuckle has been indef blocked for various reasons. Also -- those who have familiarity with that approach to editing, and unearthing puppets, might keep that in mind as we look at contributions of others to AfDs upon which he !voted.--Epeefleche (talk) 20:16, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No major accomplishments and a lack of source-verified claims to notabilty. - Mr X 21:47, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, nothing outside of routine coverage.Coffeepusher (talk) 14:24, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The fighter does not meet WP:NMMA nor do they seem to meet the standard WP:GNG. Mkdw ^talk 09:12, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete For the same reasons identified above.Kabirat (talk) 09:10, 5 April 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 speedily deleted under CSD G3. Non-admin closure. Safiel (talk) 02:40, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Mundo (Hun)[edit]

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

Article was created by a user whose only edit has been to create this article. The article's first draft appeared to be a copy/paste from somewhere, given its formatting but I can't find that it's copied from any online sources. Outside of that, the prose seems intentionally confusing ("Called by the Scaramuzes >Hertha< after a variant: Hertha of the old Germanic death-, winter- and otherworld-goddess, who is also known otherwise as Harke, Hel, Holle, Perchta, Frigg, Sinnachtgunt, Gode, Wulle, the devil`s grandma,in greek Hekata a. s. o.") I've checked some of the seemingly notable nouns mentioned in the article and can't find any proof that they exist. "Origio Gothica of Jordanis" produces no Google hits. "Vita of Saint Severin by Eugippius" also produces no hits. "Hertha and her Blocksberg" also produces no Google search hits. Given the amount of information that seems to be made up for this article and that there are no references given outside of entire books (or books that don't seem to exist), I believe that this is a hoax. I may be wrong but hopefully this discussion can clear things up. OlYeller21^Talktome 00:44, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete - It's either a hoax or MADEUP. I was unable to find any sources when checking Google News, Google Books, JSTOR, HighBeam, Questia, Credo and NewsBank. - Mr X 01:28, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I was going to speedy but I didn't feel confident enough to call it an unabiguous hoax. I wouldn't oppose it, though. OlYeller21^Talktome 01:35, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete hoax or someone's inside joke. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 01:45, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete Clearly a hoax and I will go ahead and tag it. Safiel (talk) 02:19, 29 March 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) 11:04, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

List of top 10 singles in 2013 (Japan)[edit]

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

Like previous nominations for List of Billboard Korea K-Pop Hot 100 top 10 singles in 2011 and List of Billboard Alternative top 10 singles in 2012, my feeling is that these types of lists are an indiscriminate collection of information, with citations only from the principal source and an arbitrary cut off, plus it's not even the main chart in Japan, which is published by Oricon. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 23:36, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:33, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:33, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:33, 23 March 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) 00:34, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete INDISCRIMINATE list of no enduring, encyclopedic value. - Mr X 01:48, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Indiscriminate list of information. If it was about number one singles, based on Oricon, or both, then it could have been notable, but no. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 09:48, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- And number one lists for both charts do already exist, as seen here and here. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 17:08, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per precedent (the examples in nom statement) and WP:INDISCRIMINATE. Gong show 17:35, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete While not directly listed under WP:NOT, I feel like this article merely duplicates what the weekly charts already provide with out adding anything in particular. The crossover to other articles is also not a good contention to have. Mkdw ^talk 09:22, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete For the same reasons identified above.Kabirat (talk) 09:10, 5 April 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 Highland Park, New Jersey. J04n(talk page) 11:05, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Mayor of Highland Park, New Jersey[edit]

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

Table full of redlinked listings; all but one lack articles. As such, this appears to fail WP:GNG as well; the news articles consist basically of election results, which doesn't attribute notability in the Wikipedia sense to this list. Imzadi 1979 → 02:41, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:53, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:53, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Highland Park, New Jersey. We had an article like this in the past and it was merged. Dough 48 72 13:54, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I started a new article on Meryl Frank, a second former mayor who was notable, as per WP:DIPLOMAT. As per WP:POLITICIAN, mayors aren't automatically notable. But some mayors have other factors that make them notable.

Are those who favor merge or deletion suggesting that if a larger percentage of the former mayors were themselves notable then the list would be notable? Geo Swan (talk) 02:58, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The office of Mayor isn't notable in the Wikipedia sense, even if a couple of individual prior holders of that office might be. Imzadi 1979 → 12:13, 15 March 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, NativeForeigner ^Talk 20:26, 22 March 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) 00:33, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Highland Park, New Jersey. Dough is on the money. Carrite (talk) 01:57, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP is not a directory of historical office holders. No real need to list them in the city's article either. Kitfoxxe (talk) 02:18, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
merge , but this are highly appropriate and even necessary information in the article on the community. For any group or community, the list of its successive chief executives is basic content, with the ones who might be individually notable linked. Any article on a subject like this without a complete sourced list is incomplete. Historical office holders are as important to an encyclopedia as those in place at the moment. DGG ( talk ) 05:21, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thinking again, you are right. Include in the town's article. Kitfoxxe (talk) 04:37, 30 March 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) 11:06, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Al-Qanoon[edit]

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

Does not cite any references and does not appear to meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines. OrangesRyellow (talk) 12:09, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:50, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:50, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

delete per nom. Pass a Method talk 22:22, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - appears to share its name with a militant Islamic organisation but I can find little but mirrors etc for the magazine. There is a more-or-less non-functioning website here and it is possible that it is connected with a lega advocacy group that has some sort of involvement with the UNHCR and EU, per the bottom of the page here. - Sitush (talk) 18:44, 17 March 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, J04n(talk page) 09:47, 22 March 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) 00:32, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No evidence of notability. - Mr X 02:14, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - the Arabic title given seems to translate roughly to 'laws' or 'jurisprudence' which makes it super hard to search for :( Here's the worldcat entry: [12]. Looks like Library of Congress transliterates the title to al-Qānūn, though that doesn't help much in finding sources. -- phoebe / (talk to me) 15:50, 3 April 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) Mediran (t • c) 00:05, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ryton Woodside[edit]

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

No sources to show notability Finnegas (talk) 21:46, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Occupied settlements are considered notable, and I have added a reference describing this "straggling hamlet" in the 19th century. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 01:08, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the source provided in the article by User:Cullen328 and per WP:GEOLAND. Northamerica1000^(talk) 10:47, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have added two more sources describing the modern situation. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:48, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Officially recognized populated geographic location. WP:NGEO and WP:NPLACE. Mkdw ^talk 09:24, 2 April 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.