< 10 May	12 May >

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Mkdw ^talk 18:35, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Baby genital mutilation[edit]

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

The literature on mutilation uses no such term (female mutilation being the common term) and as such it does not receive secondary source coverage of itself. This is simply an adjective attached to a term. Jay _{Σεβαστός}^discuss 23:50, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a fork of genital mutilation. Not a very realistic search term, I wouldn't leave a redirect myself... Carrite (talk) 23:57, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure what you mean by fork, the GM article is basically just a disambig. We don't have a basic GM article that could have a section dedicated to this form of it, so having it's own article serves that purpose. Are you arguing we should merge BGM into a section on GM by expanding it from a disambig into an article? Ranze (talk) 02:26, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. czar · · 00:44, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Even the sole source cited doesn't use the term. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:27, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

While it uses "baby's GM" rather than "baby GM" I think the meaning is clear enough. The specific phrase is used commonly enough. This would be reason to possibly retitle the article but not to delete the entire subject. [1], [2], [3], [4], while these are just forums I think it establishes that the phrase is used in the vernacular to refer to a subject we might choose to otherwise title. This is clearly significant, when discussing it by helpless non-consenting minors, than to simply discuss the broader issue of male or female. Male and female can be consensual if adults opt for mutilation, often terming it 'modification' instead. Ranze (talk) 02:26, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep we don't have an article about this. Please see Talk:Baby_genital_mutilation as I have nominated the page for a move (name change) but was not sure if I should do this while this discussion was unresolved. I have also added several more references. We do not cover this topic under the GM disambig, the FGM page only makes a passing reference to the issue for only 1 sex, and we lack a MGM article. Ranze (talk) 02:51, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete without redirect; that this is an unlikely search term is proven by the fact that the term itself doesn't appear in any of the sources. Most of the sources are from activists in the genital integrity movement as opposed to authoritative academic sources, and even they do not use the term as given. This topic is already covered by the articles at genital mutilation as noted, and appears to be an attempt at a WP:POVFORK. Zad68 03:50, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please see Talk:Baby_genital_mutilation#Move, regardless of the 'likely search term' this covers a valid topic we don't have an article about. Already 3 suggestions have been put forth for better names. I was waiting to initiate a move until I got more input, for now, I'll take Piotrus' move suggestion on the talk and add that term to the article. A bold move at this point should be fine if it's just the name at issue here, I would hope we could have looked past that to the validity of the issue, perhaps that will be considered then. Ranze (talk) 20:05, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge back to genital mutilation. As a stub, with few sources I see, it doesn't seem to require an article yet. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:33, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

GM is merely a disambiguation page, we can't merge to a disambiguation page. It clearly does require an article to collectively discuss this. That FGM and (well, we don't have FGM really) make passing mention of the distinction of minors doesn't mean it's getting the specificity it warrants. Ranze (talk) 20:05, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and Zad. -- Khazar2 (talk) 13:50, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge properly part of genital mutilation.Jewishprincess (talk) 21:03, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I would agree on the merge, except that there is no suitable article to merge to. And thee's nothing to merge, as there is essentially no information here. DGG ( talk ) 02:03, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

CGM[edit]

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

As per suggestion on the talk page I have done a rename, and listed a reference establishing notability of the phrase. Does this addres concerns about the titular phrasing's significance? Ranze (talk) 20:16, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What matters as far as Wikipedia is concerned is whether the subject is notable. So far, I've seen nothing to indicate that the topic of involuntary genital mutilation needs separate coverage for children as opposed to adults. Our article on Genital modification and mutilation might well benefit from a properly-sourced and NPOV section on the mutilation/modification of minors, but I see nothing in the article under discussion here that would merit merging. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:28, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with Andy. As a prosaic example, we have the article Tree but we don't have articles Tree under 4 years old or Brown tree. The best approach would be to develop content at Genital modification and mutilation. Zad68 20:32, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I reviewed the sourcing the article provided, see Talk:Child_genital_mutilation#Sourcing_problems. Nearly all the sourcing did not comply with WP:RS or was misused. To fix the sourcing and content issues the article had to be cut down to basically a WP:DICDEF. Zad68 04:12, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No specific content , insufficient specific sources. As the article said in an earlier version "it is a form of female genital mutilation when the baby is female, and a form of male genital mutilation when the baby is male. " That's where the topic is discussed, and where it should be. DGG ( talk ) 02:06, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:DICDEF and WP:REDUNDANTFORK. Sideways713 (talk) 11:45, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep per WP:SK#1. The nomination has been withdrawn by its nominator, and no delete !votes are present. (Non-administrator closure.) Northamerica1000^(talk) 06:39, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Alan Fisher (broadcast journalist)[edit]

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

Article had to be largely blanked for lack of reliable secondary sources backing up claims which were made. BLP Prod was not possible given when the article was created. I thought he might be notable being a correspondent for Al Jazeera, but my attempts to establish notability through what has been written about him rather than by him have failed. Jay _{Σεβαστός}^discuss 21:52, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Withdraw nomination. Thank you to all who found secondary source coverage, which now seems to be ample. I was previously able to find nothing - probably, as Czar suggested, because of false-positives. Jay _{Σεβαστός}^discuss 04:30, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. czar · · 23:29, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions. czar · · 23:29, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I'm withholding my vote for now as it appears that RSs are findable. The problem is that his name is quite common and so if you search it's better to use a Boolean search term. There are many clues for searching in the blanked history. The best way to save the article is to find awards he has won. Fisher has been a journalist for around 30 years. I agree with the nominator that the article was written poorly and not sourced at all.Crtew (talk) 06:53, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, good deal of secondary source coverage of this subject, — Cirt (talk) 23:17, 12 May 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--Ymblanter (talk) 08:16, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Helena Tepper[edit]

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

Request by subject. VRTS ticket # 2013042910010902 L Faraone 21:19, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Article does not make an attempt to establish the notability of the subject; she has only received passing mentions and there is insufficient information to write an encyclopedia article L Faraone 21:21, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No evidence of notability. AllyD (talk) 21:36, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete When an article presents no obvious benefit to the encyclopedia, any real-world implications should take precedence. — PinkAmpers&^{(Je vous invite à me parler)} 22:54, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. czar · · 23:30, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete because of non-notability. Even if the subject wanted it, it is not encyclopedic material. DGG ( talk ) 02:07, 19 May 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. I previously closed this as no-consensus, but Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Maxwhr/Archive has established that socking adversely affected the result. Deletion is the appropriate option Stifle (talk) 14:53, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Harry Maxwell[edit]

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

I have no doubt that the programme that this individual appeared on, in and of itself, had/has a particular notability but I cannot see any compliance herein contained in this article with the requirements set out on WP:NOTABILITY. For Junior Apprentice specifically, not a single other contestant has had a descriptive biographical article yet created and there similarly appears to be a deal of self- and brand promotion which may flirt with the WP:PROMO guidelines possibly? Pigduck (talk) 19:33, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Unneccessary article waste of space and not a notable person. Also as said no other young person on the young apprentice has a page.
Delete. I agree, Maxwell doesn't meet the notability guidelines. Yintan 20:28, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. czar · · 21:41, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. czar · · 21:41, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. czar · · 21:41, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Moderate Keep, this one is a bit tricky in that his star is definitely on the rise and in a year from now I'll have no doubt that he's much more notable that what he is now. But if we're just looking at the here and now I'd say that the article should stay. There certainly seems to be a bit about him on a multitude of sites. (Solution55 (talk) 04:45, 4 May 2013 (UTC))[reply]
Delete or incubate. Not a notable subject at the moment. 1292simon (talk) 13:34, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No more notable than any of the other Young Apprentice candidates who do not have their own articles. Tiller54 (talk) 20:57, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Don't you think we should have a look at his current activities and see then in say 6 months time what's happening. I thik we should hold off on any merge or deletion etc. I have a very strong feeling that if this article is deleted now it will be up and running in less than a year. By that time he would have had more appearances under his belt and no doubt his star would have risen. (Solution55 (talk) 09:32, 8 May 2013 (UTC))[reply]

Comment He was on The Apprentice two years ago, why would he suddenly become more notable in the next six months? Tiller54 (talk) 09:54, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Tiller54 have you actually looked at the other Young Apprentice candidates at all/ even read Maxwell's page? I think you will see he is much more notable apprenticelover (talk) 18:52, 11 May 2013 (GMT)

Redirect to Young Apprentice as a likely search term. J04n(talk page) 14:25, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep If we were to solely consider the Junior Apprentice process that Maxwell competed in 18 months ago, I could see your reasoning for deletion more. Although Maxwell did a global record for survival from any incarnation of The Apprentice, was caught-up in a well documented love-triangle and came under fire for his under-age partying; media attention no other competitor from the junior counterpart has received. However, since leaving the show, Maxwell has kept up a profile which none of the other candidates have and for this reason I think it's noteworthy. His business ventures and partnerships with LinkedIn and a Made in Chelsea star were reported on Mail Online six months ago, he has appeared as a recurring celebrity feature in an ITV2 series following his appearance, has been caught up in documented romances with two other reality stars and has come under fire for his partying at prestigious events like the BRITs. Furthermore, he has signed an exclusivity deal with Yahoo! and writes a weekly column giving his viewpoints. I think in terms of the show itself, I could understand why you may want to delete it, although he is definitely the stand-out in the bunch. However his activities post show and the interest shown by the British press and online outlets justifies the articles existence. Jessicaleuch12 (talk) 18:08, 11 May 2013 (GMT)
Keep Unless we are considering some great purge of any of the big names from The Apprentice having their own Wikipedia page? Whilst no other Junior Apprentice has their own page, Maxwell has greater references and a higher profile than some of the winners from the main series accolading an individual page, for example Simon Ambrose, Lee McQueen and Yasmina Siadatan. Maxwell is also a much more recent feature. apprenticelover (talk) 18:47, 11 May 2013 (GMT)
Keep Meets notability criteria, hence last page deletion request was disapproved. It's not a case of "No other Junior Apprentice candidates have a seperate page" - work as a presenter for Yahoo!, relationships with reality TV stars, business venture coverage from outlets like Mail Online (all in the last six months) meets the guidelines of "significant coverage" with "reliable" "sources" and when combined with the apprentice background means the page should stay maxwhr (talk) 18:49, 11 May 2013 (GMT) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Maxwhr (talk • contribs)

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L Faraone 21:16, 11 May 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 (non-admin closure) Ramaksoud2000 ^{(Talk to me)} 06:31, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Trial (Vela Whisper album)[edit]

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

unnotable song of unsigned band created by promo username. Ramaksoud2000 ^{(Talk to me)} 19:21, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not noteworthy. Details the work of someone named Greg Davidson, and was created by a user named "Greglegdavidson". Having looked it up, the user Greglegdavidson originally operated under the username "Velawhisper", the name of the band in question (See here) before having it changed just hours ago. Seems entirely like promotion to me. Friginator (talk) 21:52, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. czar · · 23:41, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete (CSD A9). The associated artist's page has been deleted under CSD A7. As such, this is now a musical recording with no independent indications of notability, associated with a band with no demonstrated notability and no article. - Vianello (Talk) 04:50, 12 May 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) — ΛΧΣ²¹ 06:39, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Elizabeth Colbert Busch[edit]

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

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

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

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

The subject of this proposal has received significant coverage from multiple non-primary reliable sources, so it can be argued that the subject passes WP:GNG and WP:ANYBIO. That being said, the reason for bringing this article to deletion is due to my opinion that the subject has received almost all of this significant coverage in relation to an event, that event being South Carolina's 1st congressional district special election, 2013. As such the subject of this proposal falls under WP:BLP1E, and as the subject is/was an active politician the subject also falls under WP:POLITICIANS which states

3.Just being an elected local official, or an unelected candidate for political office, does not guarantee notability ...

Furthermore, WP:POLOUTCOMES states the following:

Unelected candidates for a national legislature or other national office are not viewed as having inherent notability and are often deleted or merged into long lists of campaign hopefuls, such as New Democratic Party candidates, 2004 Canadian federal election, or into articles detailing the specific race in question, such as United States Senate election in Nevada, 2010.

Therefore, the article should either be deleted, or redirected into the article about the event which the subject received significant coverage about. If the subject receives significant coverage outside of that related to the election the article can always be recreated from the redirect that would be created. RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 19:18, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 19:22, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Carolina-related deletion discussions. RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 19:22, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 19:28, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 19:28, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Absolutely understand the argument of BLP1E, but she's gotten coverage that doesn't relate to the election, so I don't think the policy applies.[5] I had initially thought of nominating this article for deletion on the argument of WP:NOTINHERITED, but now I believe the coverage of her from this high profile race has exceeded any NOTINHERITED or WP:POLITICIAN concerns, as she meets WP:GNG, which supersedes those other guidelines. Reliable sources do mention her as the sister of Stephen Colbert, but as a throwaway line in many cases, suggesting that it's not the reason the articles are written. There are plenty of sources about her that don't mention Stephen at all.[6][7]– Muboshgu (talk) 19:36, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The first link to this source, IMHO is not in-depth coverage of the individual, it is an article that is all of three very short sentences. Also the two sources from the WaPo and Slate are about the election which she was a candidate in; and thus the coverage is relating to the event.

As I stated, if the subject receives significant coverage outside of that related to the election, I can understand that the individual is notable outside of the field of politics, but vast majority of significant coverage that I found regarding the subject was directly due to the subject being a candidate for a political office, and as such falls under coverage relating to the election event. If there is significant coverage not related to the election is out there, please provide it to be evaluated by us other editors.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 20:40, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. (edit conflict) Most definitely not a BLP1E, since she is not a low-profile individual. The more pertinent policy is WP:BIO1E, which is basically about whether this is a biography or a "pseudo-biography". IMHO, it's the former. The article has a well-balanced and well-sourced coverage of her life. Furthermore, I note that falling under WP:POLITICIANS doesn't negate being notable under GNG/ANYBIO; rather, it's the other way around. As for WP:POLOUTCOMES, yes, she doesn't have inherent notability. However, as one of the most heavily-covered House races in recent American history, I think Colbert Busch definitely falls in the category of losing political candidates who are nonetheless notable. — PinkAmpers&^{(Je vous invite à me parler)} 19:41, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Muboshgu's and PinkAmpersand's well-stated reasoning. --Arxiloxos (talk) 19:49, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see where she's received significant coverage not related to this one event. Pseudonymous Rex (talk) 20:29, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Bold text Can anyone provide evidence of significant coverage not related to the election? Pseudonymous Rex (talk) 17:54, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Why is that required? WP:GNG doesn't state what the coverage has to be in relation to, and WP:POLITICIAN doesn't supersede GNG. She has certainly received enough coverage during the election, which in addition to some coverage she got in her role at Clemson before running, is plenty. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:03, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The thing is that the vast majority of the coverage that I found, doing the such required by WP:BEFORE was related to the event which the subject received significant coverage about, the election. Therefore the subject falls under unelected politician (POLITICIAN) and BLP1E.

I had not found any in-depth coverage of the individual regarding her role at Clemson that wasn't created from the period she was a potential and then active candidate.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 18:58, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think that the Biographies of living persons policy would supersede the general notability guideline. WP:BLP1E says to avoid having an article if, among other things, "reliable sources cover the person only in the context of a single event." Sure, she was covered by reliable sources before the election, but just barely. Is that really enough? If a person would normally not have an article because of WP:BLP1E, but they have previously been in the news for winning second prize in a beauty contest, the BLP1E policy wouldn't apply? That seems to go against the spirit of the policy.

The page should redirect to the election's article. Pseudonymous Rex (talk) 22:02, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Passes GNG (which supercedes the Special Guideline for Politicians). Not your ordinary losing candidate for ordinary office, as more than 60,000 page views in the last 30 days indicate. A prime example of a good time to use common sense (spelled I-A-R) rather than to engage in neener-neener triumphalism. Carrite (talk) 21:17, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please believe me when I say, this is not about side X winning, and side Y loosing, this is about notability. I have supported redirects of loosing candidates to election articles before regardless of their political affiliation, that is unless they are notable for something outside of the election.

Same can be said about my opinion Christopher Dorner, and my opinion that the article should be redirected to 2013 Southern California shootings, per BLP1E and Tom Hoefling, Sukhminder Virk and Sheldon Fisher per POLOUTCOMES. This has absolutely nothing to do with the subject's political affiliation.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 23:14, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Here's the thing. Almost no one heard of the subject until the subject thought about becoming a candidate, became a candidate, and lost an election. All these are directly related to one event, the special election (a long event I agree, but still one event); therefore BLP1E applies. If the subject is notable for something other than one event, please let the community know. For instance Nick Popaditch survived AfD (which I was not involved in) as he was notable outside of politics per WP:AUTHOR; is this the case for this subject?

WP:BEFORE says I as the nominator need to look for sources myself to see if the subject is notable as defined by the various notability guidelines. I stated upfront that others may say passes GNG, and I gave my reasoning why even though the subject has received significant coverage why BLP1E applies to all those sources. So if the subject is notable outside the coverage related to the election, please let us know.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 23:23, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Move later I think that with the election already over, the article will receive fewer and fewer views. Eventually, we can take the election-specific stuff and put it in the election article. I see no need for a separate article. Colbert Busch most likely will not be running for public office again. In a couple of weeks, once page views are down, the page should be redirected. PrairieKid (talk) 01:32, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep per above positions on notability etc. Royal Mate1 22:39, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As others have noted she is notable in her own right and deserves an article. Politicsislife (talk) 23:45, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep obviously notable and per above. Grammarxxx ^{(What'd I do this time?)} 17:40, 13 May 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. The nominator (PBASH607 (talk · contribs)) has withdrawn their nomination. (non-admin closure) Michaelzeng7 (talk) 18:47, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nokia Lumia 928[edit]

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

Depends entirely on non-third party refernces, see WP:42. Add more reliable third party references or the page will be deleted. PBASH607 (The One Day Apocalypse) (talk) 17:02, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. czar · · 17:13, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The creator is putting a huge effort in adding third party links, and expanding the article by a lot. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PBASH607 (talk • contribs) 17:23, May 11, 2013 (UTC)

Keep: (edit conflict) None of the given sources are non-third party. All of the given sources are what I consider to be reliable. The Times of India, The Inquirer, Engadget, The Guardian and ReadWrite are all — or at least most of them are — reliable sources. I'm not sure you know what third-party or reliable sources; please read WP:TERTIARY and WP:RS carefully. smtchahal^(talk) 17:32, 11 May 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) — ΛΧΣ²¹ 06:39, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Evolution of cooperation[edit]

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

1) The entire article is written like a blog post or a column. The style is very informal is inappropriate an encyclopedia article.

2) The article is unorganized and lacks most if not all of the features seen in other Wikipedia articles about books.

3) The article is much too long and most of the content has nothing to do with the book itself.

4) The article is written almost entirely by one Wikipedia member, J. Johnson and contains original research/commentary.

5) The book is not notable enough to deserve its own article.

Minor stylistic copyediting will not suffice to save this article; the entire article should be deleted and, if deemed necessary, rewritten from scratch. Trialeditor (talk) 16:38, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notable book in the history of the theory of evolution. The article is not very well structured and essay-like, but it has the basic info and it seems to convey the gist of Axelrod's ideas and results. (I must admit that I recently read about Axelrod's experiments in a book by Dawkins, so they're fresh in my mind and it's hard to assess whether I'd grasped them from the article alone.) QVVERTYVS (hm?) 16:54, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. czar · · 17:14, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. czar · · 17:14, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep. The WP article is poorly written and needs fixing. But, the [Axelrod & Hamilton (1981) paper] is absolutely an influential work, with 22,000+ GScholar citations. The book is also influential, though some citations get buried in the count for the article due to the same title. So is follow-up work by Axelrod such as [The further evolution of cooperation] (in Science, 681 citations since 1988), [Evolution of cooperation without reciprocity] (in Nature, 444 citations since 2001), etc. The WP article read like OR in part but is a starting point.Truth or consequences-2 (talk) 17:27, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Nomination came from user Trialeditor, which has since been deleted. Weird way to try WP, really. This would make it Snow keep in my book.
Comment this article should be on the general concept of evolution of cooperation. If there is to be one of the book The Evolution of Cooperation (book) would be the appropriate place. If there is to be one of the Robert Axelrod and W.D. Hamilton, The Evolution of Cooperation (paper) would be the appropriate place. Barney the barney barney (talk) 18:12, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The nominator's user page hasn't been deleted; I suppose he just hasn't created one. Anyway, the arguments for deletion are either false or not in accordance with our editing policies of WP:IMPERFECT and WP:PRESERVE. AFD is not cleanup. Warden (talk) 19:10, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. This article certainly is not perfect (it was one of the first articles I undertook to write) and certainly can be improved. But User:Trialeditor does not suggest making improvements, s/he just goes straight for deletion, and on that basis alone could be deemed out of order. I respond to his specific points as follows.

1) Editors vary on the degree of formality deemed appropriate. This article is less formal than other articles, but not fatally so.

2) What other "book features" does Trialeditor find lacking?

3) I am not aware that there are any arbitrary limits on length; I dispute that any (let alone "much") "of the content has nothing to do with the book itself." And I point out that the article is about more than the book, there not being a separate article on the topic.

4) If Trialeditor feels that some material is OR s/he should tag such material. As to single authorship: so are many articles; there is no rule that only committees may write articles.

5) The claim of lack of notability is absurd, as well-documented by Truth or consequences-2, and in the article itself.

Strong keep, the argument for deletion lacking merit. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 19:46, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep seminal work on cooperation, referenced in plenty of other notable books like The Red Queen: Sex and the Evolution of Human Nature, both of which books I am privileged to have in my personal library. Jclemens (talk) 04:19, 12 May 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 17:06, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Kayla Marie[edit]

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

Fails PORNBIO and the GNG. Award/noms all group scene related. No reliably sourced biographical information. Deprodded without explanation or improvement by IP without any edit history. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 15:52, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:05, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:06, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:06, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails GNG. Only source is to IMDB, which doesn't count towards notability. Another vacuous pseudo-biography that is in essence a digital baseball card for hobbyists rather than actual biography about an encyclopedic subject. Carrite (talk) 17:43, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails PORNBIO with only scene-related award and nomination. I can't find any substantial RS coverage to pass GNG. Searching for Kayla Marie yields many, many false positives. • Gene93k (talk) 17:53, 11 May 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 nom, non-admin closure. hmssolent\^{You rang?} _{ship's log} 02:50, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Cyril Mathew[edit]

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

Events have not occurred yet and somehow before he is born? Mixed up with historical person of same name? It is so confusing. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 14:32, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The article had been vandalized by user at 223.234.114.48. I reverted to version http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Cyril_Mathew&oldid=479919354. If ChrisGualtieri or other still have a problem, feel free to re-PROD.Truth or consequences-2 (talk) 15:42, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Re-PRODed already, I see.Truth or consequences-2 (talk) 18:08, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sri Lanka-related deletion discussions. czar · · 17:16, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. czar · · 17:16, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Snow keep as a cabinet minister. Barney the barney barney (talk) 18:09, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Cabinet-level politician, meets WP:POLITICIAN. AllyD (talk) 20:00, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Your confusion is stemming from vandalism which has been reverted. Appears to be notable as a politician on a cabinet. Michaelzeng7 (talk) 22:11, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Withdraw - Thank you, I forgot to check for the obvious... vandalism. I looked only at a few edits and couldn't make sense of it. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 01:50, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. No prejudice to re-creation with proper sourcing. Mkdw ^talk 18:42, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Saad Abudayeh[edit]

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

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

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

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

Appears to fail WP:GNG,WP:V, WP:RS. Fails Notability (academics) for living person, one side opinion DaniTarty (talk) 14:09, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Middle East-related deletion discussions. czar · · 17:17, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. czar · · 17:17, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I agree with the rationale really. Fails notability. In addition, canvassing from one user is a concern for this article and influenced me to express my view for deletion. John F. Lewis (talk) 21:39, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Due to the canvassing associated with this article, I'm uncomfortable voting to keep it, since I wouldn't have known about this AFD if not for that. However, while it's not very well-written, and certainly has something of a promotional tone, I'm not so sure that it fails GNG: There are several significant claims to notability in the article. The main issue is with sourcing, but that's not a valid reason to delete an article. — PinkAmpers&^{(Je vous invite à me parler)} 23:04, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - WP:TOOSOON applies here, but right now; 3 pages of Google results show no indication of notability. Closest we have is that Times of India has created a category for this person, but both articles aren't about him necessarily. The article is also written like a promotion piece, but that can be fixed. Note: I was made aware of the deletion discussion by the canvassing on IRC. However, the opinions stated are my own and do not reflect the canvassing. ~ Matthewrbowker ^{Make a comment!} 16:14, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral. The article contains quite a few claims of significance that I believe in combination would confer general notability, but they aren't backed up by sources right now. I suggest userfying at User:Raed Maani/Saad Abudayeh until the sourcing in the article is more well-developed. Note: User:Raed Maani, the primary author and the user canvassing on IRC for the article's retention, is the subject's daughter. She has been advised that the article will not be "lost" and we explained the need to add sources to support the facts listed in the article. Dcoetzee 11:01, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note. The user is continuing to canvas persistently on IRC for participation in this discussion and has been repeatedly kicked for it. Dcoetzee 13:39, 19 May 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) 00:31, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

List of Walmart brands[edit]

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

Advertisement. Largely unsourced. None of the brands is notable, and most are impossible to verify. Most of the sources mention the brands only in passing. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 13:38, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Not an advertisement. Plenty of sources. Notable brands such as George which is huge in the UK and which I have read about many times in the press. See Walmart: Key Insights and Practical Lessons from the World's Largest Retailer for extensive discussion of their branding. And, finally, the nomination gives no consideration to alternatives to deletion. As there is an obvious parent article, we shouldn't be having a deletion discussion. AFD is not cleanup. Warden (talk) 16:38, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Where did you get the idea that I was using it for cleanup? I clearly said "Not notable". Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 16:39, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. czar · · 17:17, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. czar · · 17:17, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Per Colonel Warden's comments about available sources, and because I think this information is worthwhile as a spinoff from the main Walmart article. --Arxiloxos (talk) 20:43, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I'm sort of in WP:ITSUSEFUL land on this one. I can certainly see utility here and really don't see it as advertising, as the nominator intimates. Does that make it an encyclopedic topic? I'm less sure of that. Carrite (talk) 00:05, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I think that TenPoundHammer is correct about notability with respect to the letter of the notability guidelines, particularly with respect to sources. I think that the topic is notable within the spirit of the guidelines, however. Certainly the major Walmart brands like Sam's Choice, Great Value, Equate, and Faded Glory are notable, as flagship in-house brands of the world's largest retailer. Walmart is hugely notable, and so such an important part of its business is notable, even if sourcing those brands individually is troublesome. I think the article should stand unmerged, because there is enough detail available to be too much detail for the Walmart article. I would say that most of the minor brands are not notable, except this is a _list_ of brands, not a collection of articles on each separate brand, and I think they are reasonable as part of that list. -- stillnotelf is invisible 00:13, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Topic relating to one of the world's largest and most important corporations; too long to merge to main page on the company/stores. Being short of references isn't grounds for deletion, only a lack of coverage in reliable sources would be. Amazon lists dozens of books about Walmart, and there are even more magazine articles, academic papers, etc, some of which will cover the store's brands. --Colapeninsula (talk) 12:04, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, in this instance per User:Colapeninsula's rationale directly above this !vote. Also, this is a reasonable WP:SPINOFF article. Northamerica1000^(talk) 15:33, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, as per all above. -- Zanimum (talk) 13:01, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Listing what the largest retailer in the world owns, is certainly something encyclopedic. Any company with over two million employees is certainly notable enough to cover everything it owns. Dream Focus 00:50, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 17:22, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Kiera Wilmot[edit]

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

May be WP:TOOSOON. WP:NOTNEWS, concerned about BLP issues, and if and how information on her future life can be covered. Barney the barney barney (talk) 12:22, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete if ever there were a case of WP:BLP1E this would be it. --kelapstick^(bainuu) 12:27, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

[Following is retracted] Keep: In my view, it is definitely news, since all the media are still talking about it nearly a month later... As for whether it is too soon: these court cases last for years. The original incident is closed and finished (so not too soon for a wikipedia article). Info on her future life is unlikely to become available before a considerable amount of time has elapsed.Michaelmke (talk) 12:29, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Michael, you should read the guidelines mentioned above, particularly WP:NOTNEWS, which states that Wikipedia is not a newspaper. PK T(alk) 12:31, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

PKT, I have read it. Which part do you think it contradicts? I see a potential issue with point 3 of the policy (though it seems to me the person has become notable), but other than that, I don't see... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Michaelmke (talk • contribs) 12:37, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, falls under WP:BLP1E and WP:NOTNEWS. PK T(alk) 12:31, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

PKT, I see your point about WP:BLP1E. Perhaps the article should not be about the individual herself.Michaelmke (talk) 12:41, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. czar · · 17:18, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. czar · · 17:18, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Classic example of BLP-1E. Carrite (talk) 17:41, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:34, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:34, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

* Delete As a bio, this article fails on BLP-1E. The phenomenon of scientific experimentation and freedom of intellectual investigation is important, but that is not what this specific article is about. Such an article would not focus entirely on one person but on the phenomenon. Crtew (talk) 21:57, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy deleted A7. Peridon (talk) 12:50, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

DaleSwifty[edit]

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

I believe this fits the criteria for A1 and A7. Person isn't really significant in any way, so I believe this should be deleted. Numbermaniac - T- C 12:22, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete A7. Barney the barney barney (talk) 12:27, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 17:21, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Bacadweyne District[edit]

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

Bacadweyne district doesn't exist. 26oo (talk) 05:58, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Completing incomplete nom. — Train2104 (talk • contribs) 21:17, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Somalia-related deletion discussions. czar · · 21:22, 4 May 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) 11:10, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, hoax. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 13:41, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I can find no source other than Wikipedia mirrors to verify the existence of this district. I see no mention of anything close to this at Administrative divisions of Somalia; if you ask Google Maps, it suggests that you might be looking for the Beledweyne District instead. --Arxiloxos (talk) 20:52, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Even if it isn't a hoax, the article is way too short to be of any encyclopedic value. --Mathnerd 101 _{What I have done} ^{What have I done?} 20:34, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Bacadweyne, Bacaadweyne District, and this article may all be talking about the same place. I am convinced this place is real because of the many websites that assert its existence: [8][9]. The wiki with the prefix "so" has a page here: [10], though I am not sure what it says and Google Translate isn't working with it. Michaelzeng7 (talk) 20:21, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This may not be a formal district, but it may be a city or other kind of place. Michaelzeng7 (talk) 20:22, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Bacadweyne is a town located in Hobyo District, Bacaadweyne district is fake.^[1] 26oo (talk) 23:49, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Thanks for clarifying. And by the way, you are the nominator so it is automatically assumed that you want the article deleted. There is no need to place a bold delete !vote if you are commenting. Michaelzeng7 (talk) 00:23, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

^ http://reliefweb.int/sites/reliefweb.int/files/resources/120805_OCHASom_Administrative_Map_Somalia_A1.pdf

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 11:16, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Kadist[edit]

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

Contested PROD. Appears to fail WP:GNG, as the only sources provided in the article are on the organization's Facebook page and on their website. The only third-party sources I could find are only brief mentions, blog entries, or directory-type listings; no "significant" coverage. Fails WP:V/WP:RS. Nick—^Contact/_Contribs 13:46, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Largely passing and promotional mentions, no evidence of notability anywhere, fails WP:GNG. hmssolent\^{You rang?} _{ship's log} 14:08, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. hmssolent\^{You rang?} _{ship's log} 14:08, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. hmssolent\^{You rang?} _{ship's log} 14:08, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - After taking a look at the SF Chronicle online archive searching for "Kadist," I'm not seeing anything which counts to GNG. Note that in the event this is kept it needs a title change to Kadist Art Foundation. About 30,000 Google hits for that, which indicates sourcing might be out there. For now, in my opinion this is a GNG Fail. Carrite (talk) 15:59, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. czar · · 16:56, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. czar · · 16:56, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. czar · · 16:56, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There are quite a number of Artforum reviews of exhibitions at the Kadist Art Foundation (from 2009-10: [11], [12], [13], [14] all via Highbeam, subscription reqd) but as so often, the problem is that articles about the exhibiting organisation are much harder to find. AllyD (talk) 18:47, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Agree Kadist Art Foundation is more proper title, will edit this in. Have extended the article to include some more sources/information. Preceding comment by User:Harbourwiki
Comment Migrated to Kadist Art Foundation. Preceding comment by User:Harbourwiki

I've previously been told that it makes life more difficult for the closing admin if an article is retitled while still at AfD; ~~that said, it is done and the revised title is clearly the better one.~~ AllyD (talk) 19:17, 3 May 2013 (UTC) Actually, I see that what had happened was to re-create the article under the other name. That loses the edit history which is wrong, and also the AfD notice. I have reverted the move and will flag the Kadist Art Foundation copy article for deletion as a duplicate for the time being. If the consensus is to keep this article, then it can be moved to the new title, preserving its edit history. AllyD (talk) 19:21, 3 May 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) 19:03, 4 May 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) 11:09, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (weak). Found a few things about Kadist: Papermag [here], [Expo Chicago], [artpractical]. Papermag is New York based and has a circulation of 155000 according to [Forbes], so that's certainly not local media. Can't judge the other sources, but there is a GNG trace.Truth or consequences-2 (talk) 16:29, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. By the way, I would support renaming to Kadist Art Foundation, properly done.Truth or consequences-2 (talk) 17:44, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. What is the process to move to Kadist Art Foundation? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Harbourwiki (talk • contribs) 17:49, 20 May 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) — ΛΧΣ²¹ 06:42, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comme Chez Soi[edit]

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

Non-notable film lacking ghit and Gnews of substance. Appears to fail WP:NOTFILM. reddogsix (talk) 04:45, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. czar · · 04:57, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. czar · · 04:58, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Comment: This French language film article will require a MOVE to Comme Chez Soi as the added disambig "(2011)" is not required. It seems to have had wide enough distribution so that I will withhold an opinion until I search for French and Swiss sources discussing this non-English film. Notable to France is perfectly fine for en.Wikipedia. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 22:49, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Keep but only with appropriate references, and amend the second paragraph to conform to NPOV guidelines. I will move the article to a more appropriate title though. Deb (talk) 06:58, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Have rewritten the synopsis per Deb comment.Truth or consequences-2 (talk) 16:46, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Drew 3.2 million viewers and was considered a successful release when it came out on one of France's three major TV chains in 2011 (http://www.ozap.com/actu/audiences-tf1-et-nrj-12-faibles-france-2-devance-m6-tmc-et-w9-a-un-haut-niveau/437859). Has since received international distribution on a major global chain (TV5). Features notable lead actors. Was featured in the largest French newspaper, Le Figaro, in particular.Truth or consequences-2 (talk) 12:44, 4 May 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, czar · · 07:28, 4 May 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, czar · · 10:00, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, per User:Truth or consequences-2. smtchahal^(talk) 15:54, 13 May 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 17:04, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

East York City FC[edit]

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

PROD contested by Bchedrty (talk · contribs) who stated "this team has been around for a while in toronto and are relatively well known. good opportunity to build up not just this team's article, but articles regarding soccer in toronto and Ontario" - however, this team is not notable. It does not play in a notable league, has no notable achievements, and has not received " significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". Giant Snowman 09:42, 11 May 2013 (UTC) Giant Snowman 09:42, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 09:44, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. czar · · 09:57, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. czar · · 09:57, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I original tagged it for speedy deletion under ((db-club)) (which was converted to a PROD), I think the same still applies. Also seem my comment on the talk page. --kelapstick^(bainuu) 10:59, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Not notable - I can find no outside references to them or their league. A fun fact unrelated to the deletion, this team last year lost 7-2 to "Care Bears". Cream147 _{Shout at me} 15:31, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - looks to be the Canadian equivalent of a Sunday league team or even a Leisure Leagues team, not notable at all outside its own squad list (which, as it stands in the article, looks completely made-up). I sincerely doubt the team is "relatively well known" in Ontario.... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:52, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I did the PROD as I did not think them notable enough. I don't see how they are. -- Alexf^(talk) 22:20, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - has not played at a notable level to pass WP:FOOTYN, or received enough coverage to pass WP:GNG. Mentoz86 (talk) 07:41, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Courcelles 17:03, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Tede[edit]

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

All the sources in this article are from one specific website that does not look reliable. Koala15 (talk) 03:08, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2013 May 11. Snotbot t • c » 08:22, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. czar · · 09:55, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. czar · · 09:55, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The sources are bad, but the pl wiki article at Tede has better ones, which seem to suggest notability to me. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:24, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I agree it's barely sourced, but i've already added two references, and a note about the notability of article's subject. HÆDO_reply 12:31, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Courcelles 17:02, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

BLT cocktail[edit]

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

~~This really, really seems to be completely non-notable.~~ The Potato Hose ↘ 07:34, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn. I still don't personally believe that this is anything other than a brief bit of pop-culture ephemera, but Cirt seems to have found enough sources to satisfy WP:N. The Potato Hose ↘ 16:29, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much, — Cirt (talk) 16:40, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. czar · · 07:53, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Wikipedia is not for things someone WP:MADEUP when drunk one evening. Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:31, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Haha, based on the sources in the article [15] [16] I think this exists, but the question of notability is another matter. Michaelzeng7 (talk) 19:00, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, there are plenty of other good secondary sources for this topic. — Cirt (talk) 16:04, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Name two. The Potato Hose ↘ 16:59, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - You can easily find them in a matter of seconds in news and book sources, here: (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL). Cheers, — Cirt (talk) 17:50, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    - None of which confirm notability, only existence which is not the same thing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by The Potato Hose (talk • contribs) 18:13, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      - ~~No. Wrong.~~ Per WP:NOTE, they confirm both. Have a great day, — Cirt (talk) 20:34, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        You're just charming, aren't you? The Potato Hose ↘ 01:42, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        Not sure why you're ~~choosing to engage in such vitriol~~ in favor of removing material like this which has received coverage in multiple secondary sources. — Cirt (talk) 02:32, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        You're right, my tone was inappropriate, I apologize. — Cirt (talk) 03:07, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        
        Oh wait, you only ever seem to vote keep, with boilerplate. Never mind. The Potato Hose ↘ 01:45, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Associated Press: A Meaty Drink: Bacon, BLT Cocktails Quench Hunger, Thirst. Articles whose very title is about this subject, itself. Cheers, — Cirt (talk) 20:47, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Still waiting for evidence that this is notable, as in covered in a widespread way. I am not disputing the existence of such a cocktail. The Potato Hose ↘ 01:42, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: Yet another source with the very subject of this article in its title: Please see: "Make that a bacon vodka, on the rocks‎", Detroit Free Press, August 30, 2009. — Cirt (talk) 02:30, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Quality improvement in progress: Please note that a quality improvement project is now in progress on this article. I will do additional research for secondary sources. I will then use those secondary sources to expand and improve the quality of this article. Please be patient. I again encourage those coming to this AFD to take a look through sources at (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL). And also at :(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL). There is a good amount of secondary source coverage for this. Thank you for your patience, — Cirt (talk) 02:48, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Colorado-related deletion discussions. — Cirt (talk) 08:57, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. — Cirt (talk) 08:57, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Maine-related deletion discussions. — Cirt (talk) 08:57, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. — Cirt (talk) 08:57, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Missouri-related deletion discussions. — Cirt (talk) 08:57, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oregon-related deletion discussions. — Cirt (talk) 08:57, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. — Cirt (talk) 08:57, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

UPDATE: Okay, I've gone through and improved the quality of the article to a version with much better sourcing than previous. The article now includes material referenced to sixteen (16) secondary sources with an additional two (2) as entries in the Further reading sect. I've also gone ahead and expanded the lede/intro sect, per WP:LEAD, to include a summary of the article's main body text. Hopefully this is satisfactory to avoid being disappeared off Wikipedia. Thank you for your consideration, — Cirt (talk) 08:59, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Enough reliable sources for notability. --Hirolovesswords (talk) 12:06, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Plenty of quality sources. Nice work Cirt. Grey Wanderer (talk) 13:28, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Sourced and notable enough. --Lockley (talk) 15:16, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:HEY. Northamerica1000^(talk) 20:15, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, though with a little roll of the eyes...If we have articles called Death threat and Vehicle door, plus an article for each integer up to who-knows-how-many, we can certainly have an article on a cocktail, even if it's not widely known (or widely appealing). In an ideal Wikipedia, I'd say this cocktail is more a candidate for a small paragraph in an article on novelty cocktails. Eric ^talk 15:20, 18 May 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 procedural close. To propose a merge see Wikipedia:Merging. J04n(talk page) 10:35, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Opie and Anthony Show Army[edit]

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

Not notable enough on its own, merge to Opie and Anthony ChrisGualtieri (talk) 02:22, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. czar · · 03:41, 3 May 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) 02:55, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No vote Merely reading that page caused an ennui attack and I am no longer able to express my opinions about anything. Shii (tock) 07:04, 11 May 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, Shii (tock) 07:04, 11 May 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. Michig (talk) 07:20, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

List of countries by nominal GDP growth rate[edit]

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

This list consists entirely of Original research, and very bad research at that. As an economist by training, I've never seen any respectable organization rank economies by "nominal growth", as most of the so-called "growth" is inflation. During the hyperinflation years of Brazil and Zimbabwe, for example, you'd see those countries dominate the chart with 1000% or higher "nominal growth", which would be simply ridiculous. Unsurprisingly, the list does not cite any source at all. Zanhe (talk) 06:23, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. czar · · 07:52, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. czar · · 07:53, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The source for the data is inline rather than formatted in a ref tag, in the very first sentence of the article, though it doesn't appear to do more than give the GDP for the two years and does not use the term "nominal growth". postdlf (talk) 11:05, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't realize the article had a source imbedded in the text. Now looking at the source, which presents two years' raw GDP data in US dollar, the calculation looks even more ridiculous, as the "nominal growth rate" contains a third variable: the exchange rate. So if the USD appreciates against world currencies, most countries' "nominal growth rate" would suffer, and if the USD depreciates, then everyone else would enjoy phantom "growth". No economist would calculate growth rate this way. As you pointed out, the source only lists two years' GDP data, while the article calculated the difference between the two years and defines the result as "nominal GDP growth". That's typical WP:OR. -Zanhe (talk) 12:05, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Also, we already have an article List of countries by real GDP growth rate, which is properly sourced and does not have any OR issue. We can easily redirect to that page. -Zanhe (talk) 12:11, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Absolutely agreed with the nominator that "nominal growth" of GDP is a nonsensical metric. Unsourced and ephemeral; at best this would be an effort to replicate data from an annual almanac. Carrite (talk) 17:48, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Useless at best, and probably misleading. The deletion message might suggest that readers will always want List of countries by real GDP growth rate instead. EllenCT (talk) 08:44, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unnecessary duplication of information from List of countries by real GDP growth rate and List of countries by inflation rate. Nominal GDP is economically meaningless. Real GDP and Real GDP per capita are the economically meaningful measures. LK (talk) 09:11, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep - nomination withdrawn (non-admin closure). Whpq (talk) 15:58, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Big Green Egg[edit]

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

Advertisement. I think I overreacted when I nominated this. Now I can't figure out how to take it back and just edit the article. Hotbioform (talk) 03:44, 11 May 2013 (UTC) Withdrawn by nominator Hotbioform (talk)[reply]

Creating deletion discussion for The Big Green Egg

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. czar · · 05:07, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. czar · · 05:07, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It's notable; cursory search for sources turns up eg. [17], [18], [19], [20], and many more. Being promotional in tone isn't a reason for deletion. DoctorKubla (talk) 06:46, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per DoctorKubla. If it's written like an advert, then it just needs rewriting, not deletion. Cream147 _{Shout at me} 15:34, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above.Truth or consequences-2 (talk) 17:55, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Extremely well-known product with a passionate following and extensive coverage in independent sources. The NY Times article cited by DoctorKubla makes the notability case clearly, and there's lots more like that visible at GNews, HighBeam, etc. --Arxiloxos (talk) 19:35, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above, and note that this is the only contribution that the nominator has ever made. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 19:48, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - if it's notable but poorly written, it needs a rewrite, not a delete. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 19:50, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List of spells in Harry Potter. (non-admin closure) — ΛΧΣ²¹ 06:43, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Bombarda maxima[edit]

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

First of all, I have no recollection of ever seeing this spell (though it's been a while since I read the books, and I've never seen the movies). Second, well, even Avada Kedavra redirected to List of spells in Harry Potter before the same user who created this page copy-and-pasted into it from that list. If not deletion, then redirect to List of spells in Harry Potter. Ignatz mice•talk 03:33, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. czar · · 05:08, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Magic-related deletion discussions. czar · · 05:08, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of spells in Harry Potter. DoctorKubla (talk) 06:52, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Nom and DoctorKubla. Praemonitus (talk) 14:44, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of spells in Harry Potter - If this was cut and pasted, then we should probably undo the cut and redirect the paste. Michaelzeng7 (talk) 18:53, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- To clarify, this article was created recently; I looked to Avada Kedavra for an example, and found that the same editor had just undone the redirect to the list and copy-pasted there from the list, so I undid that. Ignatz mice•talk 01:17, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, in that case then, if this is a real spell, we should probably merge this into the list. That is, if this is a real spell. If not, then by all means do not redirect: delete. Michaelzeng7 (talk) 15:59, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Harry Potter wiki says it's real, but a Google Book search doesn't confirm that. I certainly don't think I've seen it in one of the books. Perhaps someone who's seen the movies will come along and tell us. Ignatz mice•talk 16:51, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm pretty sure it's from the movies, not that I've seen them. The image on the HP wiki is a GIF animation of a movie scene. Ansh666 18:20, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per above. Ansh666 21:49, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of spells in Harry Potter.Folken de Fanel (talk) 20:15, 13 May 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. Michig (talk) 07:17, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Brett Huber[edit]

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

Rather clearly not notable due to a lack of coverage. AutomaticStrikeout (T • C • Sign AAPT) 03:28, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:TOOSOON. In ictu oculi (talk) 04:43, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. czar · · 05:10, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. czar · · 05:11, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oklahoma-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:24, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:MLB/N. Albacore (talk) 16:55, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails notability guidelines....William 17:54, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Could not find sources to satify WP:GNG. The only sources I found were for the Brett Huber from Mississippi State , not this high school player.—Bagumba (talk) 19:49, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to List of Forgotten Realms characters. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 11:15, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

House Do'Urden[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Fancruft. Can reasonably be replaced by a one-sentence summary in Drizzt Do'Urden. Qwertyus (talk) 00:05, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. czar · · 01:11, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. czar · · 01:11, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - seriously fancruft. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 01:22, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Does not appear to meet WP:GNG. Information is pretty trivial and gives undue weight to a subsection of a game. Red Phoenix ^{build the future...}^{remember the past...} 01:24, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- That isn't what WP:UNDUE is about. If the Forgotten Realms article had a section about it that would be undue weight. Peter James (talk) 09:03, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but rename to List of Do'Urden characters or a similar name. It's essentially a list of fictional characters that exist in a notable fictional franchise. Not each one must be notable for the list to be kept, as long as the class as a whole is. Jclemens (talk) 02:38, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

notability is not inherited by being mentioned in a notable book. converting to a list does not change that. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 03:10, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Jclemens, or merge into List of Forgotten Realms characters. BOZ (talk) 04:42, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No suitable sources found, per WP:GNG. Essentially this is fictional setting trivia. Praemonitus (talk) 14:48, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to list of Forgotten Realms characters. I was able to find one source that mentions some aspects of the house in passing, but they're primarily details about Drizzt. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 14:26, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, an indiscriminate collection of fictional trivia that doesn't meet WP:GNG: no significant coverage from secondary sources. "List of..." articles aren't trump cards that can magically do away with IINFO/notability requirements, they are fully subjected to notability criteria and aren't a guaranty for survival (a look at the fictional elements AfD archives will prove it). Merely renaming this as "List of..." won't lift any of the concerns that brought this AfD, and merging the content to the already problematic List of Forgotten Realms characters would merely pile up more "excessive intricate details" than it needs. Sometimes content just needs to go.Folken de Fanel (talk) 19:59, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
delete - no third party sources writing in a significant manner about the subject. Or transwiki, isnt there someplace that relishes this trivia?-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 03:07, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
strong delete fancruft. Im sure there is a forgotten realms wiki somewhere. We shouldn't be mirroring it. Gaijin42 (talk) 15:04, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect per Torchiest as a possible search term; that list entry currently points to this article so the merge of useful information (list of family members) is appropriate.Vulcan's Forge (talk) 02:01, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect per Torchiest; information worth keeping as part of the character list, but not as an independent article. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 17:16, 18 May 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.