< 2 May	4 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 keep. (non-admin closure) Mediran (t • c) 03:02, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

University of Agriculture, Makurdi[edit]

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

This article has been needing a rewrite since 2007, and, in its current state, does not appear encyclopedic. Although there is inherent notability, the article would be better deleted and started anew than in its current state. Uberaccount (talk) 23:54, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. czar · · 00:21, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. czar · · 00:21, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:28, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is a university established by federal government recommendation, as now cited in the article, to meet specific needs of its locale. The article contains a lot of content which could be deleted if suitable citations cannot be found, taking the article down to something of a stub, but that is a matter for normal editing rather than deletion. AllyD (talk) 08:18, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Agree with above. --Bduke (Discussion) 15:47, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The nominator acknowledges that the topic is notable. The only thing at issue here is whether the state of the article is such that improvement would be better accomplished by deleting it. In reviewing the article, it clearly states what the topic is, and provides sufficient information to be informative to a general reader audience. I'd say the article is far away from needing to invoke the nuclear option. What is needed is the normal collaborative editting process. -- Whpq (talk) 13:17, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per AllyD. — Joaquin008 ^(talk) 10:46, 9 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. Not seeing one side having a stronger argument than the other and I can't imagine relisting will change that. J04n(talk page) 23:24, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No Pants Day[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Non notable event that failed prior AFD in 2005. Lots of Google hits (many of which are copies of this long-standing Wikipedia article), no sources cited in the article. May qualify for speedy deletion under ((db-event)) but due to the article's long history with many contributors since 2005, I thought it best to open discussion here. ~Amatulić (talk) 21:26, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non-notable: no sources added to article and lack of meaningful media coverage Ansh666 21:44, 3 May 2013 (UTC) (unstruck and re-worded...what happened to it?! Ansh666 16:06, 7 May 2013 (UTC))[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. czar · · 23:21, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. czar · · 23:21, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. czar · · 23:22, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Anyone asserting "no sources" isn't looking. HERE is the Daily Mail from 2010. Fairly massive mainstream coverage, although the article here is unsourced and contains factual errors, such as the date being in May, when it has clearly evolved into a January event. Where is Article Rescue Squadron when you need them? Oh, that's right, the deletionists busted their balls over specious canvassing complaints so now there's no way to flag something like this for the remedial work by a skilled Wikipedian that it needs. Regardless, clearly a notable event in that it is covered by multiple, independently published sources in the mainstream press — and over a number of years. Carrite (talk) 00:08, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Where is this "massive mainstream coverage"? There are only 11 hits on Google News, and at most one of them meets the criteria of having significant coverage and being a reliable source. So with the Daily Mail, we have two -- hardly convincing evidence of notability. After 8 years, that's the best one can do? ~Amatulić (talk) 01:06, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"There are only 11 hits on Google news"? Did you not know that two "good" sources is loosely considered to be sufficient to establish wp:notability? Unscintillating (talk) 11:45, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure where you're getting 11 Google News hits. The search linked by the nomination procedure finds about 100. Phil Bridger (talk) 11:50, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Carrite, While I agree with what you say about the canvassing, IMO the problem of unnecessary AfD nominations is not solved by editing articles while they are at AfD. Unscintillating (talk) 11:45, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is generally true, but in cases like this with factual errors that need fixing, isn't it nice to be able to toss a life preserver on the top of the piece and have somebody get the piece up to our standards for accuracy? Carrite (talk) 15:32, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Incubate Way too much WP:OR to leave on mainspace in its current form. Unscintillating (talk) 11:45, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notable event that has been running some time. Book results: I see this, [1], which includes a detailed description of the event, and subsequent editions of the book, up to the present year, also list it as an event. It receives annual news coverage and press attention. It does occur on both days, the January date (receiving BBC coverage here and earlier, here. Also coverage in the Guardian here with a link to an earlier article from 2010. Global News, Mirror, gallery in the Independent, - indeed, if I search for the string <<"no pants day" news>> in Google, I get dozens of American, Canadian and British (and probably more internationally - the Huffington has something about the event in Taiwan) news articles and hits from newspaper websites about this. While it may be a gimmick, this is surely clear significant coverage - yes, probably because it's about people whipping off their clothes in public, but that's what sells papers. Mabalu (talk) 12:12, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No coverage from reliable sources. So far our sources include the following:

A variety of articles in the British press and HuffPo about pantsless subway rides in January and February, while this article is talking about a holiday in May.
An entry in Chase's Calendar, but a calendar entry can hardly be considered "significant coverage." Furthermore, the descriptions of events in this book are written by event sponsors, and the book is not really edited to limit entries to events of any note. All anyone has to do to get listed in Chase's is to submit an entry online.
A piece from Yahoo's contributor network, which is a largely unedited, unregulated pay-per-word editorial free-for-all, and therefore cannot be considered a reliable source.

No Pants Day makes for great pictures for the tabloids, but there isn't much serious coverage. At the very least, I would expect that if this were a truly notable holiday, our sources could at least agree what day it falls on; as it stands, we don't even know what season it's in.

It sounds delightful, but I still say "delete." — Bdb484 (talk) 17:56, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Even better, the article has since been edited to reflect that this is actually a weekly holiday that "was originated by House Unity of the Kingdom Of Atenveldt." Nonsense begets nonsense. — Bdb484 (talk) 20:42, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

... but there's no reason to leave it in the encyclopedia. I've revertd. PamD 10:00, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree there's no reason to leave it in, but I'm not sure that reverting is the way to handle it; all you've done is replace one set of assertions with no reliable sources with another set of assertions with no reliable sources. It's all WP:MADEUP anyway, so why give preference to either claim? — Bdb484 (talk) 14:59, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It's spread to New York (Village Voice), Montreal (Global BC), Vancouver and Toronto (National Post and Vancouver Sun). Even the Times of India has taken notice. I'm a diehard deletionist, but this is ridiculous (in two ways). Clarityfiend (talk) 22:50, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
So go on and add the sources to the article. PamD 10:04, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Invalid sources, not an argument to keep. Those sources all pertain to the No Pants Subway Ride, which occurs on a different date than No Pants Day. It's different topic. ~Amatulić (talk) 23:15, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:EVENT for, amongst other things, not having a lasting effect. News coverage is likely as a "water cooler story", not serious coverage. 1292simon (talk) 13:30, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I don't see how the lasting effect argument works here. It happens regularly on an annual basis, and has been ongoing for a number of years, not just a one-off event one year. Plus, it takes place in several countries simultaneously, and I'm pretty sure it's something that is a household name. That seems pretty notable and lasting to me. Plus, regardless of whether or not coverage is "serious", it is undeniably extensive and ongoing - every year there is a spate of articles/reports on it whenever it comes up. At the very least it should be incubated, but I think it is a totally legitimate article subject. Mabalu (talk) 16:07, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

But the pantsless subway rides are not the same thing as No Pants Day. NPD is (allegedly) an entire day in May in which you don't wear pants. These subway rides are apparently generally confined to the subway and happen in January or March. Maybe there should be article about not wearing pants on the subway, but that's not the same as this. — Bdb484 (talk) 00:58, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, I think some people here are getting their pantsless events mixed up! 1292simon (talk) 06:08, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - So should the page then be moved to one about the subway/Tube rides thing - and if so, what do we call that? However it seems that most people think of that as "No Pants Day" so it is clearly a popular and widely known title, even if it is not technically "correct"... Mabalu (talk) 12:17, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as the article stands it fails WP:EVENT, the coverage linked to above is of the and finally reporting, no real background and history of the event. LGA _talk^edits 07:45, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I just added 18 references, so it now passes GNG. Enduring? Yes, it's recurring, so enduring, and it's also an enduring annoyance to subway operators, who are considering an enduring rule to prevent it, I think I read. It also has an article at Suomi, Magyar, 中文, translate those as you wish. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 22:07, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nearly all those references appear to be trivial mentions and galleries or slideshows, hardly qualifying as significant coverage, and should be removed. ~Amatulić (talk) 22:15, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

More than half have a decent paragraph or two. GNG says The topic must have received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject., and that can include images and video news, which convey information too.

But what about the difference between No Pants Day, No Pants Subway Ride? Isn't it the same thing? The media seems to think so. Plus, when they go to work on the subway, do they put their pants on? And moreover, aren't "pants" underpants in England? Shouldn't it be No Trousers Day to prevent misunderstandings leading to complete nudity? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 22:20, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

So many pressing questions. . .

It seems clear to me that No Pants Day and the No Pants Subway Ride are different things, although the media seems to frequently use "No Pants Day" as shorthand for the subway ride, especially in headlines. So I launched a No Pants Subway Ride article (with sources), and I think we can let each one sink or swim on its own merits. — Bdb484 (talk) 22:59, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Also, given that distinction, I don't think the current sources belong on this article, so I'm going to pull them. I expect some editors could think I was trying to start a pissing match, so I'll implore anyone who disagrees with that move to revert me, no questions asked. — Bdb484 (talk) 23:04, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I think this AfD discussion has been compromised by the confusion between No Pants Day and the No Pants Subway Ride. Despite the claims here of reliable sources for No Pants Day, I note that the article still doesn't have any reliable sources... 1292simon (talk) 23:23, 10 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 residence halls at the University of Notre Dame. The article history is still available, so merge material from there as needed. ~Amatulić (talk) 17:31, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Badin Hall (University of Notre Dame)[edit]

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

Non-notable. Other, similar, articles about halls at the University have recently been deleted and redirected to List of residence halls at the University of Notre Dame. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:21, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This article should not be deleted. It is a unique topic and is only marked for deletion because I marked it on accident. It is valuable for prospective students entering the university to learn about their future dorm. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Goobie89 (talk • contribs) 21:35, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The article was not "only marked for deletion because you marked it on accident". Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:41, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Oh. I thought it was. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Goobie89 (talk • contribs) 21:50, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- OH! You marked it for deletion because I undid your redirect. It's obvious I'm new to Wikipedia... Why were those other pages deleted and redirected? They're helpful pages. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Goobie89 (talk • contribs) 22:05, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. czar · · 21:37, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. czar · · 21:37, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Indiana-related deletion discussions. czar · · 21:37, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of residence halls at the University of Notre Dame. Most of this is irrelevant nonsense that barely has anything to do with the hall itself, and even so the hall isn't really that notable. T C N7JM 22:29, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of residence halls at the University of Notre Dame. There is nothing about this building or its use that makes it independently notable. --Crunch (talk) 23:03, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Nomination does not make a deletion argument, and this is not a high priority topic such as a BLP or corporation. Unscintillating (talk) 23:23, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Perhaps you might read it again; particular the first two words of the prose component. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:18, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of residence halls at the University of Notre Dame. I looked at a couple of the sources, but there is no hint of wp:notability. The material is there to improve the target article. The infobox seems useful, but there is unsourced material in the current article that should all be removed. Unscintillating (talk) 23:23, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
What exactly would we merge that isn't already there? T C N7JM 23:26, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think you are asking if I saw something in the sources that isn't currently in the article, to add to the target article. Probably not, but I was only skimming. But if by "already there" you are referencing the target article, then I see a whole new section with an infobox, including the picture, being added. Unscintillating (talk) 01:49, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of residence halls at the University of Notre Dame. No need for a stand-alone article. — Joaquin008 ^(talk) 16:01, 5 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 The Ultimate Fighter: The Smashes. J04n(talk page) 00:30, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Colin Fletcher (fighter)[edit]

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

Fails to pass WP:NMMA NodachiFury (talk) 21:03, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Truth or consequences-2 (talk) 14:16, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. NodachiFury (talk) 21:07, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. NodachiFury (talk) 21:24, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. NodachiFury (talk) 21:26, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to The Ultimate Fighter: The Smashes It's true he doesn't meet WP:NMMA but his appearance on a TUF show merits a redirect to that article. Other coverage of him seems routine. Papaursa (talk) 16:51, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to The Ultimate Fighter: The Smashes per the long standing consensus of reality TV stars that are only notable for their appearance in one series. WP:NACTOR. Does not meet WP:NMMA. Mkdw ^talk 08:55, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to The Ultimate Fighter: The Smashes for appearance on TUF. Article fails WP:NMMA. — Joaquin008 ^(talk) 16:03, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note It should be noted that the nominator has been blocked as a sock of User:IronKnuckle despite the seeming accuracy of the nomination. Mkdw ^talk 23:22, 9 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. J04n(talk page) 10:45, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Process 55[edit]

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

Can find no significant reference in independent media Wkharrisjr (talk) 20:30, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The article creator appears to be the development firm and the article lacks any independent refs; I am surprised it has survived unchallenged in this state for over 4 years. I have found no reliable 3rd party sources. AllyD (talk) 21:02, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. czar · · 21:40, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. czar · · 21:40, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Orphaned for three years. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:48, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. — Joaquin008 ^(talk) 16:05, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unreferenced, fails WP:NSOFT. --Drm310 (talk) 17:41, 6 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. A good argument was made but without the sources to support it. J04n(talk page) 00:35, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Damario Ambrose[edit]

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

This isn't my usual field, so perhaps I do not understand, but it appears to me that the subject has not yet had a professional career, and the references do not appear to meet the gng as more than routine notices. It was accepted from AfC, perhaps unwisely. There are quite a number of other articles on people with similarly non-notable careers, also accepted from AfC. DGG ( talk ) 20:20, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. czar · · 21:38, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iowa-related deletion discussions. czar · · 21:38, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. czar · · 21:38, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete can't remember why this articles's on my 'watchlist', however, he only seems to have had a career in University football therefore fails WP:NSPORTS criteria. Sionk (talk) 22:53, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete since has not played an AFL game (http://www.arenafootball.com/sports/a-footbl/aflbrn/mtt/ambrose_damario00.html) and thus fails WP:N(s).Truth or consequences-2 (talk) 14:36, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I agree that the subject does not pass WP:NSPORTS and that the article references are lacking. However, there is in my opinion significant widespread coverage from multiple regions around the US on the subject from just his college career. This is more than enough to pass WP:GNG. I'm seeing newspaper reports from Montana to Indiana to Boston for a linebacker from Arkansas.--Paul McDonald (talk) 14:44, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The relationship between the GNG and the specific notability guidelines is at our option, and it is different in different cases whether the specific guideline is an alternative or a limitation. In the case of NSPORTS I consider NSPORTS a limitation on the GNG as well as an alternative to it. But that is essentially the question before us. DGG ( talk ) 23:42, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Both sides have valid reasoning. I leave it to the closer to see which way consensus swings on this one.--Paul McDonald (talk) 00:01, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

While I don't have time currently to look into the Damario Ambrose case, it is inaccurate to say that WP:NSPORTS is a limitation on WP:GNG. It has long been recognized that college football players who never play a game of professional football can qualify under WP:GNG, i.e., if they have been the subject of significant, non-routine coverage in the mainstream media. Cbl62 (talk) 03:25, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with Cbl62. See reasoning at WP:ABELINCOLN.--Paul McDonald (talk) 03:28, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree they can qualify, if they win national-level awards. He does not appear to have done so. DGG ( talk ) 05:08, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that would be an additional method, but I don't believe that there is any reason to just forget WP:GNG.--Paul McDonald (talk) 14:28, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. As per Truth or consequences-2 above. 1292simon (talk) 13:32, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (but not for reasons stated above). The comments of DGG and other above appear to reflect a belief that an athlete who does not satisfy WP:ATH is excludable without regard to WP:GNG. This is plainly incorrect. The introduction to WP:ATH expressly states: "Subjects that do not meet the sport-specific criteria outlined in this guideline may still be notable if they meet the General Notability Guideline." For this reason, it has long been recognized (in dozens and dozens of past AfDs) that college football players who have received significant coverage in mainstream, independent media sources qualify under WP:GNG regardless of whether they have won a national award, played pro ball, etc. See, e.g., Travis Cole, Mike Nesbitt, Chase Pittman, Walter Mendenhall, Al Blades, Kirk Cousins, Joe Iacone. If they pass WP:GNG, that's sufficient. In this case, however, I am not finding significant, non-trivial coverage of Ambrose in mainstream media sources. Accordingly, deletion appears to be appropriate, not for the reasons given above, but because Ambrose doesn't appear to satisfy either WP:ATH or WP:GNG. I do respect Paul M.'s judgment on these matters, and if he can point to specific instances of significant coverage (i.e., not mere passing references in game coverage), I'd reconsider my "delete" vote. Cbl62 (talk) 21:32, 9 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. — CactusWriter ^(talk) 16:51, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Copia Doble Systema[edit]

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

Doesn't pass WP:MUSICBIO or GNG czar · · 15:30, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Denmark-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:31, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:31, 18 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) 00:38, 25 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, L Faraone 20:06, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, as far as I can tell they don't pass WP:BAND (yet). Yintan 20:23, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Some EPs and some mentions at specialist sites. Might be at this point more helpful to have an article about their genre Digital Cumbia or "nu-cumbia. --Tikiwont (talk) 20:24, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. — Joaquin008 ^(talk) 16:06, 5 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 article has been userfied to User:Lesion/Dimethylsulfidemia for the purpose of merging any relevant content to the halitosis article as the author suggested below. ~Amatulić (talk) 17:49, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dimethylsulfidemia[edit]

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

Contains OR. Rest of content would be better presented on the halitosis page Lesion (talk) 18:05, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Clearly a notable article, if it contains OR tag it as such or edit it, doesn't deserve deletion. ChessFiends (talk) 18:08, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. czar · · 18:11, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I wrote this page when I first joined wikipedia, before I understood rules regarding OR... I can confirm it does contain OR and what little that can be salvaged could easily be incorporated into the halitosis page. I am happy to do this. Also the nature of some of the references does not meet WP:MEDRES. Someone argued for its deletion when it was created, and I argued against them but now I agree it needs to be deleted. No others were involve in the debate at that time since it was not tagged for deletion. Lesion (talk) 18:17, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as OR and poorly sourced per nom; confirmed and agreed by original author, who is also the primary editor. -- Scray (talk) 19:36, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, there is no such an entity as "Dimethylsulfidemia", do a search in medline.[2].Kiatdd (talk) 09:57, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As per request by original author. 1292simon (talk) 13:41, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. — Joaquin008 ^(talk) 10:49, 9 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. J04n(talk page) 14:26, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Alfin Tuasalamony[edit]

REDIRECT Alfin Ismail Tuasalamony

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

Recreation of an article previously deleted by PROD. Concern was that the article failed WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. player doesnot play in fully professional league, see WP:FPL for list details. This remains valid. Sir Sputnik (talk) 17:29, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In that case, delete.Deb (talk) 17:35, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 17:31, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. czar · · 17:33, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Belgium-related deletion discussions. czar · · 17:34, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. czar · · 17:34, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 17:35, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - does not meet WP:GNG or WP:NFOOTBALL. — Joaquin008 ^(talk) 16:07, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails guidelines due to not having played at a sufficiently high level. C 679 20:44, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - the article is about a footballer who hasn't played in a fully pro league or represented his country at senior level, which means he fails WP:NFOOTY. Also fails WP:GNG due to lack of coverage in reliable sources. Mentoz86 (talk) 12:20, 10 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. J04n(talk page) 14:26, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nguyễn Rogerio[edit]

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

Recreation of an article previously deleted by PROD. Concern was Article about a footballer who fails WP:GNG and who has not played in a fully pro league. This remains valid. Sir Sputnik (talk) 17:17, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 17:18, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. czar · · 17:34, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. czar · · 17:34, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Vietnam-related deletion discussions. czar · · 17:34, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 17:36, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - does not meet WP:GNG or WP:NFOOTBALL. — Joaquin008 ^(talk) 16:08, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails guidelines as mentioned by the nominator. C 679 20:43, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - the article is about a footballer who hasn't played in a fully pro league or represented his country at senior level, which means he fails WP:NFOOTY. Also fails WP:GNG due to lack of coverage in reliable sources. Mentoz86 (talk) 12:19, 10 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 rename. Will move to Death of Betty Van Patter. J04n(talk page) 14:29, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Betty Van Patter[edit]

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

Unable to establish independent WP:N in WP:RS, including google, google news, and other google books. All references seem to lead back to Horowitz' allegation. Horowitz also is the publisher of FrontPage Mag. Kate Coleman's work on Salon has been the subject of multiple WP:RSN disputes, which all seem to suggest that her writings are non-RS.

If not deleted, this should be redirected to Horowitz' page, as the only notability of the subject that I can find is based on his unproven allegations. [ UseTheCommandLine ~/talk ] # _ 16:42, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. czar · · 17:05, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States-related deletion discussions. czar · · 17:05, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:16, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:16, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Rename Death of Betty Van Patter; the subject has received passing mention in multiple non-primary reliable sources, I have to agree with the proposer of this AfD that the subject of this AfD has not received significant coverage. That being said, the mystery surrounding her death has received significant coverage in multiple reliable sources, such as this article from the Oakland Tribune, and this book from Da Capo Press. As these in-depth coverage of the event occurred years after the subject of this AfD died, I would say her death has received continued coverage, and thus the event which is her death is notable. Therefore, the subject of this AfD falls under WP:BIO1E, and the subject should be changed to her death and the investigation, and open (cold) case that is its present status.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 23:29, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 23:31, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Pearson's book is not without its reliability issues. (I have a copy.) It also does not appear to mention Van Patter independently of Horowitz's allegations. -- [ UseTheCommandLine ~/talk ] # _ 07:49, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to Elaine Brown#Murder of Betty Van Patter. I have no strong objections to Death of Betty Van Patter, however, I do not think her death would be notable independent of the allegations tying her to Brown. (Regarding "murder" vs "death": the Mother Jones article states that she was murdered.) Location (talk) 23:12, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Since it is an unsolved murder, I feel fairly strongly about not redirecting it to the article of a person accused (again, by Horowitz, a not-disinterested party) of somehow participating in the murder, at least not without some other strong sourcing for that allegation. Since Horowitz is the one making the allegations (AFAICT), i figured the appropriate redirect would be to him. -- [ UseTheCommandLine ~/talk ] # _ 07:43, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In my opinion, the better redirect target is Brown since she is the subject of the allegations and the material simply fits there better. Even though the allegations originated with David Horowitz, GNews and GBooks reveals that those allegations have been reported on by a variety of secondary sources (as RightCowLeftCoast alluded to previously). In other words, this is not an allegation made by someone whose opinion mattered to no one.

I cannot speak to the overall reliability of Pearson's Shadow of the Panther, but it was published by a reputable publisher and has been reviewed favorably by The New York Times , Publishers Weekly, the Los Angeles Times and others. I don't think it really matters whether or not there are allegations or investigations that were made independently of Horowitz, but Pearson gives a fair amount of coverage to Van Patter and to Horowitz's allegations, and he indicates on p.346 that he interviewed an investigator and Van Patter's sister.[3] Contentious material like this certainly requires in-text attribution, but there is no need to delete it from Wikipedia when other secondary sources have reported on it. Location (talk) 22:47, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to Death of Betty Van Patter and Keep. Notability is somewhat broderline here, but I have to agree that merging into Elaine Brown might raise BLP issues. The best solution is to rename it as proposed by RightCowLeftCoast above. The actual content of the article seems fine to me, as it doesn't directly allege that Brown was responsible for Van Patter's death, it only states that Horowitz has made such allegations. Robofish (talk) 11:22, 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. J04n(talk page) 14:32, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Icoy de Guzman[edit]

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

Non-notable politician. Running in a race, but not indications he won that race, or that he was ever mentioned except briefly in passing in connection to him running against someone more notable. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 16:36, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. czar · · 17:06, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. czar · · 17:06, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I can't find anything that would make mr Guzman wiki-notable. Yintan 20:30, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Subject has received some coverage, arguably significant, in non-primary reliable sources; however, the coverage is primarily regarding the subject's candidacy for a future election. Therefore, it can be argued that the subject is only notable for one event, and thus falls under WP:BLP1E. Furthermore, the subject clearly fails WP:POLITICIAN, for being a candidate for an election does not automatically denote notability. Therefore failing POLITICIAN and not being notable for realms outside of politics, I believe that the subject of this AfD is not yet notable to warrant a standalone BLP article.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 20:28, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose for deletion - He is an professional filipino lawyer and it significates importance, Read A7. -ItagaMoSaBato (talk) 09:57, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There are hundreds, if not thousands, of lawyers in the Philippines, what makes them all notable. Please see WP:GNG & WP:ANYBIO. Has the subject of this AfD received in-depth significant coverage from non-primary reliable sources? If so present those sources for others to evaluate? Furthermore, even if there is significant coverage, are they regarding a single event? If they are, then the subject falls under WP:BLP1E, and if the event is due to a candidacy than we need to further the subject per the definitions of notability for politicians.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 13:28, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails notability standards. Searching the Philippine major dailies did not produce significant results.--Lenticel ^(talk) 15:22, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - being a candidate is not a claim to notability unless he/she has been the subject of enough significant, reliable coverage. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 10:11, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose for deletion - He seated as a member of Navotas City Council , from 2001-2004, he run again in 2004 and 2007, but lost. It significates importance because he seated as an politician -110.55.154.190 (talk) 03:09, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment WP:POLITICIAN notes that offices below the national or provincial level are not de facto notable, falling back to the WP:GNG requirement of significant coverage, of which we have no evidence for de Guzman. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 13:13, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. While WP:POLITICIAN may not be helpful at least on Philippine context for some parts (Navotas is not a part of any province), articles in Category:Filipino city and municipal councilors are either councilors who have seved in higher offices (Francis Pangilinan, Mike Defensor), or were notable on some other fields (Kim Atienza, Isabelo de los Reyes); the sole exception might be Carmen Planas, but she was the first woman to be elected in any position in the Philippines. Those who are primarily known for being a councilor and nothing else aren't there. –H T D 13:17, 7 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 Snooker. (non-admin closure) czar · · 01:38, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Snooker plus[edit]

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

Never-popular game variant. Negligible sources (one glossary entry, one newspaper snippet from 1959). Very little to document. LukeSurl^{t c} 16:29, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. czar · · 17:07, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with snooker, perhaps? Yintan 20:31, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to snooker or a new article on Snooker variants. There seem to be several variants where a brief summary is about all we're likely to have, and covering them in one article may be best. --Michig (talk) 06:13, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to snooker. — Joaquin008 ^(talk) 16:10, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to snooker Fork me (talk) 11:42, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to snooker, nothing here that isn't already covered in the main snooker article anyway..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:20, 8 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. J04n(talk page) 14:33, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Mohammed Al Maiman[edit]

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

Non-notable model, fails WP:GNG as the subject has not had significant coverage in reliable sources. Would be a WP:CSD candidate but for the addition of dubious claim to have been one of several UAE men deported from Saudi Arabia.

Previously deleted at Mohammed Al Maiman by AFD at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Al Maiman Mohammed on 22 November 2012; by WP:CSD on 21 September 2010, 11 October 2010, 28 October 2010, 16 February 2011.

Deleted at Mohammed al Maiman under CSD on 1 October 2012.

Deleted at Mohammed al maiman under CSD on 17 October 2010, 28 October 2010, 16 February 2011, 26 March 2011, 23 November 2012. Hack (talk) 16:00, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. czar · · 17:09, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. czar · · 17:09, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Saudi Arabia-related deletion discussions. czar · · 17:10, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. czar · · 17:10, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, probably speedy-delete. This article has been deleted at least twelve times, under at least six different titles: Mohammed Al Maiman, Mohammed al Maiman, Mohammed al maiman, Mohammed Al maiman, Mohammed AL Maiman, Al Maiman Mohammed, over a period running from 2010. It has been repeatedly created by sockpuppets of an indefinitely blocked user, User:Taztouzi. It has a history of containing false claims of significance, and after several deletions these false claims started appearing on other web sites, in a way that looked as though they had been planted there to provide fake references for the Wikipedia article. Before the first creation of an article about Mohammed Al Maiman, there had already been false claims about him posted in other Wikipedia articles, and all together there has been a continuing campaign to use Wikipedia to promote him for at least three years. In my opinion, this qualifies for speedy deletion as recreation of an article deleted at AfD, as a promotional article, and probably also as a page created by a blocked user. However, even if it is not speedily deleted on those grounds, it should still be deleted. There is no plausible evidence of satisfying Wikipedia's notability guidelines. Some of the "references" are dead links, some others do not even mention Mohammed Al Maiman, some are clearly not reliable sources. The article claims that he was "2nd runner up" in a contest called "Mister World", but this does not seem to be a notable event (its Wikipedia article was deleted at AfD), and in any case I have not been able to find any confirmation of the claim anywhere on the Mister World web site. What is more, back in 2010 when this campaign to use Wikipedia to promote him started, I was able to find apparently reliable sources which gave a completely different person as the "2nd runner up", though unfortunately I did not keep a note of where those sources were. I was, in fact, inclined to speedily delete the latest incarnation of the article, but I am willing to wait and see what anyone else may have to say. JamesBWatson (talk) 20:11, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete (again) and salt it to prevent recreation. Yintan 20:32, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I'm not so sure that salting is a good idea. If the article is deleted, and the deleting admin wants to know why, I will happily email my reason to him or her. JamesBWatson (talk) 10:13, 5 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. J04n(talk page) 14:36, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Santa Clause (series)[edit]

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

Unreferenced content fork of the three individual movies. The page makes zero statements about the series, only about individual films. Stuartyeates (talk) 03:44, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: It is commonplace to have film series articles that aggregate content across multiple films. For example, Box Office Mojo aggregates box office figures. In addition, it seems likely that film reviews could compare a recent film to its predecessor(s). Erik (talk | contribs) 04:09, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. czar · · 04:24, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:COMMONSENSE - this is useful. Barney the barney barney (talk) 09:59, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as total overlap. WP:ITSUSEFUL is not an argument. I see nothing "common sense" about an unreferenced fork that merely regurgitates what's already in the three films' articles. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 22:43, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a notable topic. In addition to each individual film being indisputably notable, the sequence is also indisputable. Coverage of the succeeding films often refer back to the previous film or films. For example, Box Office Mojo analyzes the third film's box office performance compared to the second's here. TenPoundHammer is right to say that such information can be found on individual films' articles, but I do not think it is detrimental for Wikipedia to have an article that aggregates the content under a verifiable scope. In addition, due to the nature of the scope, coverage in the film series article may be more comparative in running text than the individual films' articles. Erik (talk | contribs) 20:35, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
So are you going to leave it an unsourced trainwreck, or are you gonna fix it? It won't fix itself, contrary to the common belief around these parts. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 14:31, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
We do not delete an article about a verifiable topic because it is a mess, but I will go ahead and add references for some of the figures. If you can help, that would be appreciated too. Erik (talk | contribs) 14:41, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I hope the various passages I've added help illustrate how films can be compared across a series. Erik (talk | contribs) 15:34, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Unless there are multiple sources with in depth coverage of the series, that would be WP:OR, which is banned. Stuartyeates (talk) 19:54, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
What part of WP:OR applies here? It is self-evident that we have a film series, by both the nature of their numbering and by the acknowledgement of this grouping by independent sources. That is a key reason why the existing references compare and contrast the films. Erik (talk | contribs) 20:06, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It's very common for there to be articles for both individual films and the overall series they are in. Some more information could be added, but I don't see any reason why this shouldn't exist (especially since it's not unreferenced anymore). Alphius (talk) 15:31, 30 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, Mark Arsten (talk) 15:57, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Article is about film series, so naturally, the films represent an essence of the article, so it is normal that they are mostly described. Additionally, it would be a good thing to add some information of series in general (from official website, critics, news etc.). Also, keep per WP:COMMON, not applicable is WP:ITSUSEFUL, as these films are notable and we have, for example Harry Potter (film series). Suggestion: keep only with clear advice to expand the article with appropriate contents of series itself. Alex^{discussion ★} 16:13, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep per User:Barney the barney barney - Nom has lost ALL WP:SENSE nominating this!! -

→Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 21:41, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, good deal of secondary source coverage of numerous varieties. — Cirt (talk) 10:24, 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 speedily deleted by User:RHaworth under criterion G3 (blatant hoax). (non-admin closure) • Gene93k (talk) 00:19, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Right Here Waiting (Loi Mistica album)[edit]

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

Non-notable musical release. No evidence of full-length professional-level reviews, charting or awards. No independent references. Stuartyeates (talk) 03:46, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. czar · · 04:24, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:02, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - like one of Mistica's other albums, which I nominated for deletion and has since been deleted, this album isn't the subject of enough reliable, significant coverage. Please do note that the Philippines does not have an official or established music chart. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 19:16, 27 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, Mark Arsten (talk) 15:56, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Part of a walled garden of articles so heavily embellished that they are now hoaxes. duffbeerforme (talk) 12:55, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No reliably sourced evidence this is for real. Everything related to the artist comes from user-generated content sites like wix.com, Facebook and SoundCloud. • Gene93k (talk) 17:53, 9 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. Now OK. Unfortunately, using IAR to bring articles here is sometimes the only effective way to force improvements in something that will be unacceptable unless improved. I'd be glad if anyone could suggest a practical alternative that wouldn't be even more trouble. (Redirecting to an absurdly over-general article on a broad related topic that doesn't mention the subject & couldn't reasonably do so rarely gets attention. , DGG ( talk ) 04:30, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

BabyNes[edit]

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

This may be notable, but the article doesn't show it. I am reluctant to bring an article here that may only need expansion and updating, but after rewriting extensively a number of similarly weak article written or approved from AfC by this editor, I've lost patience. I'll withdraw the AfD if anyone is willing to work on it. DGG ( talk ) 00:12, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I will expand it. At the time of it's creation, I was very busy and I had to go onto a business holiday. O will work on it, and I commit to that. Please don't deleteit. Coolboygcp (talk) 05:25, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:29, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:29, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:29, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The deletion argument basically boils down to "I don't want to fix it". Deletion is not an improvement tag. With respect to GNG, the article is trivially easy to CITE in major international newspapers, among other sources. Moreover I found the discussion of it's controversy interesting. Maury Markowitz (talk) 13:51, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Gave it a few hours of love, a whole bunch of RS from major news sources—should be good now. czar · · 02:13, 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, Mark Arsten (talk) 15:56, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep At this time, the article has many reliable sources indicating a notable product. Transcendence (talk) 19:40, 3 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) czar · · 01:40, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Christian Colleges[edit]

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

Article seems to be, for all intents and purposes, original research, and thus is contrary to Wikipedia policy. The sources cited do not support either (1) the article's assertion that "Christian colleges" is a defined category of educational institution or (2) the descriptions of the specific characteristics attributed to this type of institution. Please note that the problem with this article is not a lack of notability (I recognize the existence of "Christian colleges" and I think the topic of Christian approaches to higher education is notable), but rather that the article content does not appear to be based on previously published content -- it looks like unpublished analysis by the contributors. Orlady (talk) 05:01, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Orlady (talk) 05:15, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Orlady (talk) 05:15, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Sorry, but I see nothing in particular there to substantiate the deletion nomination rationale. The statements there are much more common knowledge--at least to those who know Christian colleges--than they are OR. Jclemens (talk) 05:38, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep See the very narrow subject search I did in Worldcat for the about 1000 English language books that could be used as sources. DGG ( talk ) 17:33, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, there are myriad individual "Christian colleges" out there, and documented in your search results. I've edited and even created articles about many of them (not to mention my long-ago work on Bible college). What's not clear is whether the generic concept of a "Christian college" that is presented in this article is based on published sources. The URLs cited in the article probably no longer point to the desired destination pages. Digging around on the websites that are linked, I infer that the real operative definition of "Christian colleges" might be colleges that are members of the Council for Christian Colleges and Universities, since one of the refs is a dead url on that organization's website and another one is an uninformative page on the website of a college that promotes its ranking as one of the most affordable colleges in that organization. --Orlady (talk) 18:24, 26 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, Mark Arsten (talk) 15:53, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

~~Weak~~ Keep This article definitely could use more work and it does contain statements that (while maybe common sense, they aren't self-evident to the point of something like the sky being blue) still need references. But this is a notable topic as shown by the Worldcat search done by DGG and it is salvageable. Transcendence (talk) 19:54, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Encyclopedic concept, a concrete thing. This would probably be better handled in the form of a list, such as List of Christian colleges, but that is an editing matter. Carrite (talk) 15:36, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Move to Christian college. At least in the United States, Christian colleges as described in this article are a distinctive subset among colleges and universities. This is a meaningful concept even if this article does not cover the topic adequately. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 02:34, 10 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) 03:01, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Organic, Inc.[edit]

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

It's an advertisement, full of unsourced spammy claims. Many industry firsts... hundreds of awards... and much more Jimfbleak - talk to me? 05:22, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. czar · · 08:19, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. czar · · 08:20, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. czar · · 08:20, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Another deliverer of digital experiences advertising on Wikipedia. Advertising businesses are generally not encyclopedia subjects, and this is not an encyclopedia article. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 17:00, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Promotional and need rewriting, but certainly notable enough to be worth it. I don't like to say this unless I am myself willing to do the rewrite, so I just did a preliminary hob of it. Some further referencing is needed. and I don't claim to have expressed everything perfectly. But this is the first time I've heard it suggested we should delete an article because the subject won too many awards. Looking at the article, some of them were major. I left those in, and removed some of the over-generalities. Those who commented before, please take another look. DGG ( talk ) 03:23, 2 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, Mark Arsten (talk) 15:52, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notable as evidenced by the number of reliable sources. This article isn't purely promotional, it states facts without using puffery. The awards and clients section could use some references though. Transcendence (talk) 19:57, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but a rewrite is definitely necessary. ("delivering digital experiences"? Do me a favour....) Yintan 20:38, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I rewrote to undo some of the (self) promotion. Hopefully it is less SPAMmy now. Seems notable enough given clients and as a subsidiary of Omnicom.Truth or consequences-2 (talk) 14:58, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, looks like notability is established here. — Joaquin008 ^(talk) 16:12, 5 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. L Faraone 21:16, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Feri Sulianta[edit]

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

This article was created by User:Ferisulianta, evidently as a self-promotional article. Originally it was clearly a machine translation, though it has now been substantially cleaned up. A note on the article's talk page says that it was basically a copy of contents from his own web site. I have tried to find evidence that Feri Sulianta satisfies Wikipedia's notability guidelines, but unfortunately failed.

As far as the references cited in the article are concerned, all but two are no more than listings which contain Feri Sulianta's name, lists of his books, etc. One of the other two is www.ferisulianta.com, clearly not an independent source. The other one is at indonesiawriters.com, which invites anyone at all to submit a page about themselves, as long as they feel they are a screenwriter or the author of articles. It says that it is conceived as a complete directory of Indonesian writers, but at present it has a total of five writers listed.

The first hits on a Google search are articles on English and Indonesian Wikipedias, Feri Sulianta's own web site, Twitter, two YouTube videos, FaceBook, www.goodreads.com, which is a promotional site (It says " Are you an author or a publisher? Gain access to a massive audience of more than 15 million book lovers. Goodreads is a great place to promote your books.") So it goes on - nothing I found was coverage in an independent reliable source. JamesBWatson (talk) 09:40, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. czar · · 16:16, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletion discussions. czar · · 16:17, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I can find no significant independent coverage of this author in reliable sources. The list of works makes this person appear to be a one-man book of the month club based on how quickly he churns out these books. -- Whpq (talk) 15:54, 29 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, Mark Arsten (talk) 15:51, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Doesn't seem to pass WP:GNG Transcendence (talk) 22:41, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Appears to be autobiographical or subject-written. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:31, 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. L Faraone 21:17, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Greg Day (playwright)[edit]

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

This article was created by the same user who created Clout Communications, which is Greg Day's company, and which was recently deleted at AfD [4]. The purpose of both articles has been the promotion of Greg Day and his endeavors. This article on Day was declined at Articles for Creation [5] and then disruptively moved into the main space anyway. Day fails WP:AUTHOR and WP:GNG and WP:RS. Qworty (talk) 20:46, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. czar · · 23:05, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. czar · · 23:05, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. czar · · 23:06, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Articles should be assessed on their own merit not universally condemned because of their author. Just because the article for Clout was deleted does not automatically mean this one should be.
The deletion policy states that improvement should be preferable to deletion: this article is only in need of a few edits or additions: deletion is the wrong approach. The subject of the article meets the notability criteria as it has significant coverage in reliable sources (including several national newspapers), and also meets the WP:Author criteria as the subject has "multiple independent periodical articles or reviews". I have contacted the author of the article about adding further detail to his references (the article's authors and titles), so that they can be more easily verified -but again this is a relatively minor addition and a far better alternative to deletion.
With regards to promotion, I don't believe it reads with an overly promotional tone. It's not blatant advertising so is not a grounds for deletion anyway, but full and proper neutrality could be achieved with a little diligent editing. This is another little edit and as the policy states; improvement should be our first port of call and deletion the last.
It would be unfair of me not to mention that the user who has submitted this article for deletion appears to have somewhat of a vendetta against the author of the article. I am not the only user who has criticised the user for his extremely harsh treatment of the author; which has included unnecessary threats to block him from wikipedia and unjustified accusations of vandalism. A quick look at the user's talkpage show's it's not an isolated incident and over several years they have been repeatedly warned about Wikipedia's fundamental principle of civility. Rushton2010 (talk) 21:55, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Subject wrote a few plays which were produced in not so notable places. There is a suggestion of coverage but incomplete bibliographic information makes this difficult to verify. I can't find anything in Google News or Google Books, so I can't say anything but delete. FWIW, I do believe that the article is too promotional in tone (the second paragraph of the lead...and look at the first version). These edits didn't improve the article much: they're not reliable sources. The promotionality is not in itself a reason for deletion, of course, but I point this out for the sake of redundancy. Drmies (talk) 02:01, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I must really argue against the use of google news (google in general is not suitable for any academic searches *or anything other than broad pop-culture searches for that matter* as is constantly drummed into university students). It really is no use in establishing notability as it anything but complete and has no proper archive. For example I used google news last week to follow a large local news story. There were countless stories online about it but google news only found 1. And then after two days google news stopped finding that one. The URL to the story on the bbc website had not changed but google news came back with no results; as if it had never happened.
If we are going to use "hits" on news websites as proof of notability (which we really shouldn't be) we need to go to ones which actually have a proper and complete archive of news stories. The Times Digital Archive holds a complete and fully searchable collection of all The Times newspapers from 1785-2007. UK Press Online similarly holds a complete archive of the Daily Mirror (1903-present), Daily Express (1900-present) and Sunday Express (2000-present). Both of these sites require a paid subscription, but I, like many others on Wikipedia, have institutional access to them through university.
-These are the types of sites we should be using to search for references; not the half-arsed answer of google.
As for notability of where the plays are performed - that isn't really a relevant argument; an individual does not gain notability (or lose it) based on where they have or have not performed. If someone performs once at a big venue like the O2 arena, does that make them notable? No. And Shakespeare performed mainly in some very non-notable places, does that loose him notability? No.
And it's hard to call places like BBC Radio 4, non-notable. (if they're not, I look forward to seeing their pages being nominated for deletion).
As for the second sentence "His 'nihilistic jocularity' led to his second play, The Arrangement, being described as "the most disturbing bedsitcom since Polanski's The Tenant", I don't see that as promotional; the first part could be lost as it doesn't add anything for anyone who doesn't have a pretty broad vocabulary (nihilistic jocularity means to basically have a comically skeptical view on life), but the "The Arrangement, was described as "the most disturbing bedsitcom since Polanski's The Tenant" is a simply a statement of fact, not of promotion - and actually is rather an argument for notability.
I was actually the one that nominated the Clout Communications for deletion. (I have no connection to the subject or the author or any interest in theatre or anything) the reason I nominated it for deletion was that it was impossible to improve it to a standard that would bring it in line with the policies. This one is different. I would say it meets the notability policy; others disagree but those arguments are not strong. Anything minor can be fixed and better to air on the side of caution and not delete, whilst improvements can still be made, and whilst notability is still in discussion. The policy says we should seek to improve and delete only which cannot be improved; something Jimmy Wales has also talked about. This article seems the obvious candidate for improvement. Unfortunately there are certain reviews and editors who do not follow these policies and just pick and choose what they want from them. The above comment is prime example: Complaining that the article sounds a little promotional (which isn't grounds for deletion anyway), but then making no contribution to improving the article.
"Because editors can't be arsed to make improvements" is no grounds for deletion. -Come on guys- follow policy -lets improve the articles and make wikipedia the great place we all hope it can be.
Rushton2010 (talk) 10:39, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, that's certainly a lot of words. Unfortunately, you said absolutely nothing. Have you got one shred of WP:RS to establish WP:42 for this person? No, of course you don't. Because it just doesn't exist. Qworty (talk) 10:47, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- And the 26 references listed on the article count for nothing. If national newspapers are suddenly not classed as reliable sources and having 26 independent references (many of which are whole articles solely about the subject's works) aren't classed as significant coverage then the inbox for articles being deleted is going to fill up big time! Rushton2010 (talk) 11:06, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - And it doesn't look like a single one of those is ABOUT him. Do you understand WP:42 and WP:NOTINHERITED? Do you understand that a source has to be ABOUT a subject in order for it to be considered a support for notability? It's not about the notability of the source--it's about the notability of the PERSON. You don't seem to understand how sourcing works. Qworty (talk) 11:15, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    - yes yes yes. So reviews of his work and articles about him in national newspapers aren't actually about him? Dream on. Rushton2010 (talk) 12:33, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      - Let's assume that he wrote one play that was notable--which is a big stretch, since he never wrote anything notable. But let's just assume he wrote one play that was notable. The notability of his play wouldn't extend to HIM, because of WP:NOTINHERITED. It doesn't matter how many articles you can dredge up that may have passing mentions of his plays. None of the articles are about HIM. You are extremely confused about how notability works in biographies. That much is clear. Qworty (talk) 13:06, 29 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, Mark Arsten (talk) 15:46, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep plenty of references. Having a "Work of Greg Day" article (because it's that which is mostly covered) rather than Greg Day is being a bit silly and not following WP:COMMONSENSE, now isn't it? Also, clear WP:WIKILAWYER abuse of WP:NOTINHERITED, in violation of WP:NOTPOLICY. Barney the barney barney (talk) 16:54, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Talking generally, I rather agree with Ruston, above. GN needs to be used very carefully, searching both the "any time" and the "all news" choices. What is counts and what it doesn't is a little peculiar--for example it includes the Press release publications which are not RSs, and changes with time. It's still helpful. The nYT archive and similar are limited to individual newspapers--there are various newspaper aggregators , which many of us have access to --but I know of none that are complete. I often check plain google also--I will sometimes find refs that are as reliable of most of G News. There is no magic recipe. what can be found depends on persistence, skill at guesswork, and what one has available. But it was much worse 10 years ago, before G News. DGG ( talk ) 05:08, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep/Comment I am disdappointed at the intellectual snobbery on Wikipedia. Maybe the naysayers could establish a pragmatic guide as to what counts for notability - always a subjective matter at the best of times. How should we judge the merit of plays and films - on box office receipts? On good reviews in The Times or The Daily Telegraph? On the playwright's bloodline? Many playwrights and film directors early efforts were regarded as minor, yet in teh context of their overall canon they are still important works. A plat is a play and a film is a film - if it has been written then it exists and the work and the playwright are both worthy of some recognition, even if it only to say that the work is minor. One might as well dismiss Lady Jane Grey as a monarch because she only reigned 9 days and was probably useless. One may as well exclude gnats from the natural history books because they are not as grand as eagles. Is an obscure childrens book published in 1912 less worthy thanb Dan Browns Da Vinci Code. Absolutely not. In fact, freethinkers might argue that it's Dan Brown who should be looked down on for his questionable talents. But it seems that snobbish editors are always in thrall to the arts that make money and not the arts that matter.

As for COI, as a journalist I happen to know lots of famous people, especially in teh arts and media. Shopuld I therefore be excluded from editing, say, Sean Bean's wikiopedia page, or the articles on Uri Geller, Steve Harley or Sir Richard Attenborough, for I know all these people well, along with many others. One might equally argue that as a native of Burton on Trent I should be banned from contributing to the Wikipedia page since I am bound to be biased one way or another about the town. I love teh Rolling Stones so certainly should not edit their page lest I give an unbalanced view. I respect Wikipedia;s rules - but they are NOT APPLIED CONSISTENTLY and we all know that laws applied at random do not constitute justice. Likewise here. Picknick99 (talk) 17:40, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Incubate/Rework - As it is, the article is about the plays, not the playwright, and doesn't establish the notability of the plays. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:35, 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 11:10, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Eiffel 65 (album)[edit]

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

Unlike Europop (album) and Contact!, this album is not notable enough to have it's own article. I have no critical reviews on this album and, despite only charting in Italy, its... its just not notable enough to be here.

P.S: I like how the editors of the article put a "?" in the producer section of the infobox. EditorE (talk) 20:49, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. czar · · 23:05, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. czar · · 23:05, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Utterly and irrevocably fails WP:NMUSIC. Qworty (talk) 23:06, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ Unable to find significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the artist or label so does not meet WP:GNG and ~~does not appear to meet any of the criteria of WP:NALBUMS~~. Normally I would recommend merging into the artist's page but there really isn't anything to merge, and a redirect really serves no purpose because it is a self-titled album so anyone looking for it will find the artist anyway. J04n(talk page) 13:23, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I was a bit hasty in my initial assessment, it reached #13 on the Italian album chart, meets WP:NALBUMS. J04n(talk page) 13:26, 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, Mark Arsten (talk) 15:45, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Having articles on music, which have only charting info and no other in-depth info and critical reviews, are being put under discussion, so I highly doubt this articles worth being here. EditorE (talk) 01:17, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NALBUMS, "All articles on albums, singles or other recordings must meet the basic criteria at the notability guidelines, with significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." Transcendence (talk) 22:44, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per Transcendance above. Miniapolis 15:08, 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 Withdrawn by nominator (non-admin closure). Cloudyjbg27512 (talk) 03:14, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Energetically Modified Cement ("EMC Cement")[edit]

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

This article is written like an advertisement, and most of the references are from a single site. Cloudyjbg27512 (talk) 15:13, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination withdrawn It is about a real product which is worth an article, although the article definitely needs some copy editing. -- Cloudyjbg27512 (talk) 03:07, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely not. EMC Cement comprises TWENTY years of advanced research and field usage This page faithfully reports some aspects of that.

The page is being edited upon the input of major academics in the area. There are no peacock terms in there. Virtually every sentence contains a valid citation, many to articles published in leading journals by leading academics in the field. Out of 26 references, only a very few point to a single site, and this is because some of the academic papers are sitting on a server or is information (e.g. independent test data) made available for the readers further investigation.

The following message has been placed on the user's talk page (see, talk), as follows:

"You have placed a very damaging "considered for deletion" message on the page for EMC Cement.

Please understand that this article is being edited upon the input of leading academics in the field. You will note that virtually every sentence contains a citation to a reference (in many cases to published entries in leading journals, by leading academics in the field.).

Until we understand what your objections are, then your notice will be removed as it is vandalism.

Further, please outline your activities/professional qualifications/interest in advanced material sciences"

The user Cloudyjbg27512 seems to have no academic background in science, let alone the field of ::advanced material sciences. As such, unless there is valid objective justification, this is an act of vandalism, possibly perpetrated for improper reasons.

Jono2013 (talk) 15:45, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. czar · · 15:47, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Jono2013, a farmer doesn't need to have udders before he can judge his cows. Cloudyjbg27512's academic background (or lack of it) has nothing to do with the listing of your article, it's about Wikipedia guidelines. Thanks. Yintan 20:53, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but I do suggest some copy editing. The article constantly mentions "EMC Cements" (note the capital C) which is also the name of a (the?) company. That's confusing and adds to the advertising feel of the article. Yintan 20:53, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yintan: Your comments are thoughtful in the second comment and I will deal with them in a moment. But first, in respect of your first comment, we are not talking about "cows" or "udders". We are talking about (highly advanced) material science. I agree that your metaphor has relevance to cows and udders but not to EMC Cement. I have asked for the originator Cloudyjbg27512 to justify. And so far, nothing. There is not one, not one, peacock term in there.

Re your second comment:

(i) You will note that nowhere in the article is the company mentioned. This is because the article is purely about the science, application and validity (i.e., also in normative terms) of EMC Cement. Nor, is there any mention of the patents, nor the steps taken to commericalize the introduction of the technology. This is because the article is being written under the guidance of leading academics, who, have debated for several years whether or not to commit their time towards expanding the Wiki "knowledge base" so as to also include EMC Cement.

(ii) The actions of the user Cloudyjbg27512 has caused so much disgust, that there is pressure that we remove the article entirely. That would be unfortunate, as wiki would lose reference to what some consider to be one of the most important scientific innovations in cementitious materials innovations.

(iii) The actions of the user Cloudyjbg27512 will be shared with other academics, teaching staff and students. There may be discussion to entirely ban Wikipedia as a research tool for submitted assessed essays etc. You may find such "soft protests" neither here nor there, but so be it.

(iv) Now, regarding "EMC Cements". It is deliberately and consistently in the plural because, there is no such thing as ONE type of EMC Cement. EMC Activation is a scientific "phenomenon", that yields one type of EMC Cement or another, depending on the RAW MATERIAL used. So in fact, there are several "types", just as there is no such thing as one type of "cement". An EMC made from fly ash, is quite different to one made form natural pozzolan, quite different to one made from silica sand, quite different to one made from Portland cement - and so on and so forth. The difference will be in application characteristics, strength developments and OPC replacement-capabilities (as the article makes clear). I hope it is now clear why there is deliberate usage of the Plural. It bears no relation to whether the company name is accurate or not from a strict "scientific" construct.

(v) "EMC" and "EMC Cement" reflect names given in the academic and user-world to "energetically modified cements". We do not use "EMC" here, as we do not want it to be mistaken for other uses of "EMC", which are plentiful. Simply, it is what it is. The Company name reflects this, rather than the "other way around". In other words, the company was named "after the event" (several years after the discovery and reporting, by all accounts) - and not the other way around.

I hope the above assists.

Finally, this was the second act by the user Cloudyjbg27512 to deface the EMC Cement page. About 18 hours ago, he placed an "advert" sticker on the page. I removed it as it was clearly unjustified. Then, the user Cloudyjbg27512 took the action to mark it for deletion. But, rather than mark it as a PROD, he went one step further. I believe that that was an act of "pique" and non-justifiable on any other footing. This is inexcusable if, like me, the preservation of Wiki's integrity in "serious" science articles is to be preserved.

Jono2013 (talk) 21:42, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WP:PROD is for uncontroversial deletion only. I thought that the deletion may be controversial, so I sent it to WP:XFD instead. -- Cloudyjbg27512 (talk) 04:11, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Trying to give you the greatest benefit of doubt, nevertheless this does not explain why you went "straight for delete" without discussing first on the page's talk page, or by sending me a message first. Nor does it explain why you yourself have removed the message I posted (see above) on your user talk page. It is common, if not de rigueur for exchanges to take place on talk page of a User who has proposed a contentious edit, let alone the extreme step of deletion. You risk your conduct as being reasonably construed as displaying a consistent pattern of (i) not justifying your actions and (ii) not wishing to take responsibly for your conduct. Further, because your first action (namely the advert sticker you had placed on there, again without discussing first) was removed by me, you knew full well that I would have likely removed the PROD label -- and that would have been the end of it. That is TWO times you added contentious content to the article page, without having the courtesy to discuss first. Further, you also know full well that there are only two outcomes of this process that you instigated, and either way, this page will be deleted. Hence you have removed the above comment from your talk page, so there is no trace of it there too, "ahead of the event".

The biggest "self-policing" mechanism on wiki is for those who take strong steps to disparage/criticize content, MUST be prepared to justify. Otherwise there is a distinct and real risk that such person is acting little better than an internet troll - and even worse, an unprincipled one at that. And I'm sorry, but a one-line justification to place an article into the Deletion category, does not count when (i) on TWO occasions you made no effort at all to discuss matters first, (ii) nor have you justified since either substantively or in terms of your posture (iii) self-deleted my reasonable request for your justification from your own user page.

I note your first edit was registered on 26 April 2013, so maybe you are inexperienced in such matters of etiquette and courtesy, and maybe you have a non-academic background and are therefore unaware of "academic courtesies" either.

Jono2013 (talk) 11:17, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment From this this article, page22 and this legal document, we see that V. Ronin is associated with and looks like a principal player in the "EMC Cement" company. The first set of photos are "All photos courtesy of Dr. V. Ronin", but in the attributions for all three files, they are claimed by user Jono2013 as "Own work". I'm lead to the conclusion that Jono2013 has some close relation with V. Ronin and thus there is a major conflict of interest here, per WP:COI: the principal author of the article on the "CemPozz" material likely has a professional or financial interest in the Texas company "EMC Cement" that produces the CemPozz material. It also means that all the papers with V. Ronin as an author probably cannot be considered independent reliable sources, per WP:RS. This is also true for the whitepapers referenced from EMC Cement's company website. --Mark viking (talk) 01:27, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Be aware you are directly raising a very strong innuendo which risks being construed as attacking the integrity and motivation of a leading academic who had nothing to do with writing the article. Moreover, you are completely wrong in your conclusions and your assertions are therefore false. What follows will explain why. Be assured, I am not "attacking you" by writing what I have written (nor by what follows) rather I am stating "as it is".

Vladimir Ronin is a professor at LTU, the inventor of the EMC Process, and also a "principal player" (as you put it) in the "EMC Cement" company (as you put it). The images have been supplied to me by him. The major images on the page are from LTU. All of the academic papers are either LTU papers, or other academic papers including Laurence Berkeley and various other universities (as far afield as China).

The white papers are by Twining inc., and independent. The test data is independently supplied by accredited labs.

The pdf link to which you refer is not even cited on the page. But while we're at it, note that oneof the authors of that pdf, is Professor Lennart Elfgren. Elfgren is regarded by many as being a one of the leading luminaries in Cement Technology. He is now an emeritus professor, but for many years, I understand he was the Dean of Civil Engineering at LTU, regarded by many Swedish academics as the most highly-ranked university in Sweden for material sciences.

Let's now take the most "damning" accusation you are making: All the papers by Vladimir Ronin "probably cannot be considered independent reliable sources". Have you any idea what you are stating here? Ronin is accredited as having invented the EMC process. You are aware the papers date back 20 years? Do you have any idea the number of times these papers have been independently cited?

For example, NONE of the academic papers have been written SOLELY by Ronin. For example, Justnes (a co-writer of some of the papers) is Chief Scientist at SINTEF, Norway, and a Professor in Cement and Concrete chemistry at the Norwegian University of Science and Technology.

This page is reporting important aspects of EMC Cement only. Nothing about commercialization, patents, patent portfolios, investments in patents, patent coverage.

If the best that can be said in support of "bias" is to make reference to a court case which has nothing to do with the page entry, and mistake a page which is faithfully reporting the various aspects of the subject completely objectively -- yet at all times, with no mention whatsoever of patent portfolios, efforts to commericalize etc -- then you need to try better than that. I repeat, a conscious effort was made to ensure the page reflects only about the properties of EMC Cement as reported in credible scientific journals (many of which before publication were peer-reviewed, by professional academics), by independent third parties, and via independent test data.

I am not Vladimir Ronin and I have no financial interest in any Company selling or licensing EMC Cement/technology.

As for the photos, the photos were supplied by EMC Cement BV or Professor Ronin. And yes, I registered the photos as being my own work, because that was the most efficient way of uploading.

If you look at my user profile, you'll see I've edited the TCA Cycle. My background is life sciences, but I learned of EMC some years back and was dismayed there was no entry on Wiki. I contacted the company and discussed it with Ronin and he was happy to provide photo material for the article PROVIDED that he had no input on the content. Other input has come from other academics (including China, the US, Japan, Australia and Europe)

Ronin has not contributed ONE word. Even the main section of photos was written by a third party academic, from a completely unrelated (leading) University in England, who is involved in newly emerging-field of biomimetic material sciences - and is extremely insistent that the "self-healing aspect" is included.

This is now the second allegation made towards the page, which cannot be substantiated. The first was that it "reads like an advert", which is not capable of being substantiated, except for the use of a capital "C" in "EMC Cement" (But that does not stand up to scrutiny for the reasons expounded). Having failed to identify any language whatsoever which is "peacocking", the next "attack" is "conflict of interest". Which cannot be supported.

If the page is removed, it will not be re-written. And over a month's work to ensure a concise entry spanning 20 years' work, to ensure an entry was objectively justifiable, having the input of a number of academics from all of the World, will have been for nothing. It will be Wiki's loss. So while, I have no problem responding to "critique" based on justifiable comments regarding the tone of an article, if a leading academic's reputation is going to be impugned, then we need to escalate this.

We cannot have a situation whereby Wikipedia is allowed to become a "feral" world, whereby those hiding behind anonymity are free to attack the integrity of leading academics when, as I have explained, such academics have had no part in writing any aspect of the entry. And by this I mean Professor Ronin, who has had NO part in its WRITING whatsoever. Email him directly and he will confirm this.

Indeed, should you email Ronin, no doubt he will ask for the page to be removed, not because the page is nonobjective or biased, but because of the risk of damaging unsubstantiated accusations regarding his professional integrity, being made by those who hide behind anonymity and have no background whatsoever in the field.

I trust this assists.

Jono2013 (talk) 02:47, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

keep after some editing. I consider it a ral topic, worth an article here.

Jono, we are discussing the article not editors. An "advertisement" tag was appropriate--removing it was not. Listing it for discussion here was also appropriate (there would have been no point listing it for Prod, as you could and would have removed the prod tag). If we know its going to be disputed , AfD is the place to deal with it. We assume everyone here intends to benefit WP. Nobody owns a WP article, and an attempt to insist on particular content and spelling indicates an attempt to claim the topic, or to promote it. One can promote an idea, a person, a method, a type of material, a view of the world, as well as a product: at WP we call all of this promotionalism, and avoid it, whether or not it advertises a particular company.
It's a real and appropriate topic, but the article is not organized according to our usual standards. I did the following

I have changed to title to Energetically modified cement, which seems the standard term -- we do not use capitals in such cases. We use singular forms in our titles when possible, e.g. Cat, not Cats, although there are many forms of cats. And we use the full forms in the titles, not trademarks or abbreviations. I have made the necessary redirects, and I am also changing the section titles elsewhere to this form. While there, I also fixed the grammar & changed the punctuation not to use hyphens or dashes as a punctuation mark within sentences unless necessary. All these are standard conventions here, and any article must adhere to them. I also reduced the promotionalism and verbal redundancy of these sections. After this AfD, will be the time to consider whether they are necessary in both Cement and Portland cement. I also removed to inappropriate see also listings; listing a specific material like this as a see also for Ecodesign and Sustainability shows promotionalism; it should have given cause for thought to see no other materials are listed in either.
The term "EMC Cements" is redundant, because the C refers to Cement. I gather from the previous discussion it is a proprietary term, & I am simplifying it wherever it occurs. I note none of the formal publications use it. The same for EMC Activation-- it's proprietary , and needs to be AMC activation.
I have reduced the number of illustrations. The photo of a Poxxolan deposit is a good one for Pozzolan and I am moving it there--it had no illustration. The photo of road-making is irrelevant--it is not specific to EMC & would look the same no matter what sort of concrete were being used. I removed it, but it may be useful elsewhere. I am not sure the diagram of testing concrete is relevant either -- it's general to the subject of concrete, and may be useful elsewhere in WP. I removed it from here. I'm not sure the photo of a standard strength testing machine is closely relevant, but it is a dramatic photo, & one such usually improves an article is usually helped by one. . I do not thing the photos of crack healing are OR, exactly, but the copyright will need to be checked further. They are, however, a primary source, being the evidence used in the paper on the materials. I haven't removed them, but I leave this to further discussion. The diagram of activating the cement doesn't really show anything about the process, it's just a diagram of material passing through a mill, applicable to any material and any mill. I've left it for the moment.
As for legends: We do not write elaborate legends here. We write text in the text portion of the article; this is different from the style in some technical publications where figure legends contain the key material, but we area general encyclopedia, not a technical publication. I'll move what isn't redundant.
General statements about the environmental merits & other usefulness of the process need to used carefully. What is really needed for this is a statement in a reliable tertiary publication, like a standard textbook, not a paper discussing the particular product.
References: References like "Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). EMC Cement Presentation January 18, 2011." are useless, because this is not enough information for anyone to find them. They will be removed. The reference to the Eureka award needs to be proved by a site from outside the company. And there is one key reference needed: since this is a patented process, we need a reference to the patent.

I'm reluctant to do too much of the detailed rewriting unless the article is kept, but I'm doing at least some of what will reduce the impression of promotion of the product, for the article would probably not be kept otherwise. DGG ( talk ) 16:05, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The general writing needs a considerable degree of rewriting and reorganization to remove duplication and add clarity.

Can we please keep this focused. This is inappropriate content for discussing whether to keep or not. Most of your comments are better dealt with to the page's talk page, AFTER deciding whether to keep or not. This said, you have taken it upon yourself, as non expert, to cause major changes to page without any discussion first. Let's deal with just a few of them:

1. The pozzolanic photo was specific to the entry being made. And is the photo used in the published academic paper. You have decided, without reference anyone that you are going to sequestrate it.

2. The other removals have not even been discussed first. I have sent you a message asking you to justify. You have stated "The diagram of activating the cement doesn't really show anything about the process, it's just a diagram of material passing through a mill, applicable to any material and any mill. I've left it for the moment." Really?

And so it goes on: The Bache diagram you have removed, shows lack of understanding. First, it sets out the method used to establish the results which are set out in what was the accompanying section. Second, the data in that diagram was for that process. Not every Bache method is the same. You have removed a specific diagram of specific reference. That shows what I would consider to be an "unjustifiable presumption".

3. Tertiary material re environment and sustainability: 2 publications are cited already, if you care to follow them. One is from Lawrence Berkeley, the other (from recollection) Illinois. Further, the CO2 emission and energy usage of the Portland Cement industry are well understood and extensively set out in many journals. The energy requirements of EMC Activation "is what it is"

4. The EUREKA award citation contains a link to the actual certificate itself. What more proof is needed? Are you saying that if EUREKA chooses not to publish recipients via its website, or has only recently started to do so, that a prior recipient cannot state that fact, even it is verifiable by the certificate itself? The whole purpose of making the certificate available was to verify the assertion.

5 You say "we are a general encyclopedia not a technical publication". Have you seen the entry for (for example) Pyruvate dehydrogenase complex?

6. USFWHA reference. See here: http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/pavement/110118.cfm . To kill two birds with one stone, note the reference to patents. The company website also confirms it controls patents for the EMC Activation process (among others). There is no doubt the process is patented. In the same way Viagra is also patented, but the closest to a reference to its patent are various news articles (see, for ex., Viagra, n.59-61). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jono2013 (talk • contribs) 17:11, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What i fear is "blind" deference to the "everybody owns wiki" principle over expertise. Very very worrying. Note the spelling of "pozzolan" (two "zz"s, not two "xx"s)

I'll look for items you edit, but would prefer you discuss it first on the article's talk page, so that your perception can be modified/moderated before you rush to what might otherwise be rash judgments as a non-expert.

Jono2013 (talk) 16:48, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

INCLUSION IN 2 WIKIPROJECTS

The energetically modified cement entry has had added to its talk page, two important wikiprojects: Civil Engineering and Chemistry, with assocated portals by Northamerica1000. I hasten to add this is without any lobbying or contact from me, although since learning of this, as a matter of courtesy, I have offered my thanks on his/her respective talk page.

Jono2013 (talk) 14:45, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination withdrawn It is about a real product which is worth an article, although the article definitely needs some copy editing. -- Cloudyjbg27512 (talk) 03:07, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your withdrawal of the nomination has been copied to your entry at the top of this page, per the instructions http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:AFD#Withdrawing_a_nomination

Can this now be closed ASAP?

The following is stated as a matter of record:

Thank you to everyone who voted to keep the article. Since Saturday, I have made an enormous effort to continue the article. It is still not finished.

Thank you especially to DGG talk ) for his tremendous perseverance and displaying a posture that convinced me to labor matters and not seek MYSELF for the removal of the article. Despite his initial conduct which found no favor with me, his subsequent posture is a credit to Wiki.

This is a highly specialized subject. Any further comments regarding its substance please place on the page's talk page

Any comments regarding copy-editing please have in mind I am a retired (senior) academic, who went out on a limb to include the page on Wiki. I am not involved in EMC and never have been, whether at an academic or "financial interest" level.

This page should never have been placed here. To have done so was in flagrant disregard of Wiki Policy. I am not going to quote chapter and verse, but have in mind that when this page was "pounced upon", a cursory travail of its history would have led anyone to conclude it was still being developed. Moreover, this is the only page, and likely will remain the only page, I will ever write substantively on Wiki.

This experience ruined my weekend and caused me acute embarrassment to those academics who know of EMC, had been assisting me, but who did not trust wiki policy to ensure accuracy over and above "blind adherence" to the "everyone owns wiki" principle.

Ronin does not support the page's inclusion on wiki. But he has kindly allowed photo material because he knows I have nothing but the best of intentions.

I take my reputation seriously, and the embarrassment caused to me, viz. those academics who had (after my persuasion) been kindly assisting me, does not sit comfortably. The "attack" on "conflict of interest" regarding Ronin was a further example. You dont just rush to snap judgment like that and publish your accusation. Not when you're referring to a senior academic. You POLITELY ask first.

I have informed Ronin of the innuendo raised against him. He will write a statement formally disavowing ANY involvement in the writing of the article, in due course. This will be posted by me on the article's talk page. Anyone seeking to contact him can do so. But be prepared. I again remind those considering that, that he is a leading academic and may not take kindly to that. So I urge that anyone wishing to contact Ronin, viz. any allegation of Conflict of Interest, only does so only upon careful consideration and for the most stringent of reasons.

Further, Ronin has stated that any attempted contact of him will require full contact details and a resume of qualifications. Let me put it this way: that is NOT to be construed as a "general invite" for any wikipedian to bombard Ronin. He is being more than generous as it is with his time in even offering this.

I have no idea who Cloudyjbg27512 is, and whether he/she has any conflict of interest - for example, a "competing academic", a "paid-up member" of the Portland Cement industry, or even a person involved/"fronting" the litigation mentioned above (of which I have NO knowledge). All I know is Cloudyjbg27512 joined on April 26 of this year, well-after this article was first published, disregarded wiki policy twice over, and removed my request for a justification from his/her user page.

Once again, thank you to everyone who supported the keep. And to Cloudyjbg27512, if you have no COI, then thank you for "seeing common sense" (a cornerstone wiki policy) and I hope you learn from this - I trust you had a very pleasant weekend, because you surely turned mine "upside down".

Jono2013 (talk) 14:33, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Please keep working on this, to me it remains difficult to read and extremely confusing. Maury Markowitz (talk) 01:21, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Mr. Markowitz: If you cannot make a constructive comment, please refrain. Your background? - oh I see it: no background whatsoever in ADVANCED material sciences. NO qualifications WHATSOEVER to assess. May I ask, do you see advanced Biochemistry as being more or less specialized than advanced material sciences? If MORE, what is your basis? Have you seen the entry for (for example) Pyruvate dehydrogenase complex? Or maybe try Histone_acetyltransferase. Are they easier or more difficult than the plain English of energetically modified cement? Or is it still too difficult for someone who has no background in ADVANCED material sciences? Please KNOW YOUR AUDIENCE and please stop giving the appearance of patronizing the SUBJECT by ASSUMING it's a "mickey mouse" or "low level" subject RIPE for the "armchair lawyer" brigade.

02:50, 7 May 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jono2013 (talk • contribs)

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

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

The result was delete. And nothing of value was lost. Shii (tock) 06:54, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wikimedia Meta-Wiki[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

This page cites not a single source whatsoever and doesn't even assert notability. It obviously satisfies the A7 speedy criterion. For most of its history it was a redirect to Wikimedia Foundation; Red Slash turned it into a full article, but was unwilling or unable to present third-party coverage. I doubt significant third-party coverage exists. But a seven-year-old AfD discussion where notability was asserted without evidence is now used to keep this alive and an article in direct violation of WP:N, WP:WEB and WP:V. Apparently it will take a new AfD to acknowledge that unsourced content without an assertion of notability has no place on Wikipedia. So be it. Huon (talk) 15:00, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. czar · · 15:14, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Searching, I can't verify any information beyond "Meta-Wiki is a website about the projects of the Wikimedia foundation". The first AfD is pretty silly (but the idea that this article could be A7'd after being kept at AfD on notabiliy grounds is just as silly). As far as I can find, it doesn't remotely meet WP:N, and as much as I detest "redirect" !votes at AfD, this should probably be redirected to Wikimedia Foundation, since that's the most useful outcome to give someone searching for information on the topic. Wily D 15:39, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom. Doesn't contain any significant material.
Redirect to Wikimedia Foundation unless third-party sources are found. I did find at least one, [6]. The other Google Books hits seem to only be small references. (COI: I'm an admin on Meta) πr² (t • c) 15:29, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It should be noted that the authors of that book, one of whom is deceased :(, are Wikimedians, so it could be sorta a COI there. At least it's something. πr² (t • c) 21:03, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I saw that source too, but ultimately conclude it was more like a first/second party source than a third party sources. Wily D 09:12, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I just reread this article's original AFD. It is ridiculous. Wow. If it weren't for !vote-counting... man, I feel policy was on the deletionists' side here. And maybe here as well. I really badly underestimated Meta Wiki's outside-world notability, I thought there would be lots of outside sources that were just difficult to find, etc. I am delighted that Mr. Circle Area found one source--congratulations, one better than me . Now at least if things don't change, we'll have a good precedent to follow. I mean it, everyone, I really, really thought there'd be sources out there. From now on I will seek out an abundance of sources before making the article! (By the way, important content should definitely be merged at least. It is frustrating that this title redirected to WMF's page in the past, a page that didn't really say anything about Meta.) Red Slash 19:54, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Some more info could be added to Wikimedia_Foundation#Wikimedia_projects. πr² (t • c) 20:36, 5 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) 19:02, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Jacques Montemoiño[edit]

(Find video game sources: "Jacques Montemoiño" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · TWL · NYT · WP reference · VG/RS · VG/RL · WPVG/Talk)

I believe it is not notable per the Wikipedia policy WP:BIO. This article appears to have been created due to the assertion that the person is a notable computer games developer. He does appear to be a games developer, it just I can't find any sources to show he is a notable one to include in Wikipedia. Seaweed (talk) 12:02, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. czar · · 16:14, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. czar · · 16:14, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) czar · · 03:30, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - reads more like a feel-good article from the local newspaper than a encyclopedia article. --72.28.136.205 (talk) 17:37, 30 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, czar · · 14:19, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No indications of notability. Wikipedia is not a social networking site. - Jorgath (talk) ^(contribs) 23:18, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - His profession is irrelevant at this point. It does not matter if he is a gamer, a YouTube sensation, or running for president. He fails WP:GNG based on no WP:SIGCOV from WP:RS. The only thing remotely close would be an interview with Blog Talk Radio, but even that falls short of a RS. --FoolMeOnce2Times (talk) 19:04, 9 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. Based on the hesitation of many of the "keep" !voters. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:49, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

David Maxwell (journalist)[edit]

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

Does not meet notability criteria. WP:CREATIVE. No third party sources. Long list of irrelevant references were removed as they stated nothing soever about the person. Mootros (talk) 02:36, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Northern Ireland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:14, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:14, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:15, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:15, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - A presenter on BBC Newsline is notable. Just because Skynews or some other BBC competitor hasn't written a gigantic article on the presenter doesn't mean they're not very high profile as this person is. Journalists don't always write stories about other journalists. Common sense people. Removing references and external links is inappropriate in an AfD. I fail to see how this "article improvement" is a good faith effort by someone who wants to delete that article. --Oakshade (talk) 23:09, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment He is not a presenter on BBC Newsline [7] You must have mixed something up. Mootros (talk) 12:54, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment These references did not meet the WP:Verifiability criteria; they were NOT third-party sources. An article written by Maxwell is a primary source in terms of verifying the claim that he works for the BBC. However, as such it does not establish notability so ever. Similarly a video featuring Maxwell as a "reference" to claim that he appears in BBC videos is original research; it does not establish any notability either. If there would be an article in for example the The Times saying something about Maxwell there might be a possibility to establish notability. Mootros (talk) 12:44, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Original research is a Wikipedia user gathering information that's completely unverifiable to anyone else, ie "I went down to the BBC and they told me David Maxwell is a reporter for them. You might not see any video of him, but trust me." Simply providing a video link showing Maxwell on the BBC is not in any manner Wikipedia's definition of "original research" as it is completely verifiable and verified by the link. --Oakshade (talk) 16:36, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

OR "This includes any analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position not advanced by the sources" I.e. notability via a list of random articles written by him. Plus he does not even have a profile on the BBC website. Where is he notable? Mootros (talk) 17:08, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, good deal of secondary sources. — Cirt (talk) 04:39, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If so, please add them. Checking here [8] I can't see anything that could be used. Mootros (talk) 12:42, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

At most weak keep. The article gives me the impression that he is a journalist who sometimes reads the news on a BBC regional station. This is probably WP:V and not WP:OR, but I am dubious on notability. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:10, 22 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, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:44, 26 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, czar · · 14:14, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

possible Keep An earlier version included the sentence "He works for BBC Newsline where he presents the breakfast news, the late news and occasionally the lunchtime bulletin". If you can source this, and it should be possible, it adds considerably to the notability. Without it, we don't know if he ever presented anything but these two stories. DGG ( talk ) 17:24, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Yes that would be good, but all I have found after some searching are these two links. What are the above claims of notability are based on is unknown. I somehow have the suspicion that some of the adamant keep supporters think this is a game here to be won. I have asked to them to come forward with evidence, but nothing has happened. Mootros (talk) 05:46, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep per above Crtew (talk) 06:08, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Like most articles that end up in AfD, the quality of the nominated article was atrocious. However, the deletion that has taken place since nomination errs in the other direction from improvement. I voted with an eye on the history link of this article. This article is in serious need of someone who is interested, weed out good from bad sources, and can rewrite it based on some of the sources that have been deleted.Crtew (talk) 06:17, 9 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 A1 Grand Prix#Future. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:50, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A10 World Series[edit]

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

Briefly proposed motorsport series that does not meet the notability criteria. The article relies on one speculative source, no more news or information would ever appear, and the series website has shut down. QueenCake (talk) 23:44, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:03, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to A1 Grand Prix#Future. Wikipedia should cover this topic, since there are multiple sources discussing it (see [9], [10], [11]), but I don't think it warrants a standalone article since it was only proposed and then abandoned, and never actually existed. It is already discussed in the main A1 Grand Prix article, so I think a redirect there makes the most sense. --Cerebellum (talk) 02:34, 26 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, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:03, 26 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, czar · · 14:12, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per Cerebellum. --Arxiloxos (talk) 14:39, 3 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 all with some fancy footwork (non-admin closure). czar · · 14:41, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Neon (song)[edit]

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

No indication of notability, no references. Andre666 (talk) 21:04, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:36, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect each to its respective album. They certainly don't need their own article. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 00:02, 24 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, →Σ σ ς. (Sigma) 06:19, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect all per above, except Neon (song). None of the songs above is notable on its own, so redirect is the best venue for the rest. However, there is Neon (Chris Young song), which is notable per WP:NSONGS, so I would suggest deleting Neon (song), then moving the Chris Young song to that title and including a hatnote for the John Mayer song. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 22:40, 27 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, czar · · 14:11, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect all per above; Move Neon (song) to Neon (John Mayer song) and redirect to parent album, then move Neon (Chris Young song) to Neon (song) (and add a hat note about Mayer song, per WP:PRECISION and to avoid further movements or discussions). Tbhotch.^™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 21:44, 5 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. Stifle (talk) 21:46, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Moss graffiti[edit]

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

Delete, considered speedy but this is a new subject doesn't really look to be notable, refs go to an instruction website, and the first is to the epa. O.R. is a concern here for me too Hell In A Bucket (talk) 06:59, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - inadequate references.Deb (talk) 08:34, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Guerilla gardening. I found some refs[12][13][14][15][16], but it seems a bit of a fad and I don't think it's quite notable in itself. --Colapeninsula (talk) 12:46, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:24, 18 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, →Σ σ ς. (Sigma) 07:30, 26 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, czar · · 14:07, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep appears to be just notable enough although maybe there isn't much that can be written about it using existing reliable sources. If Inhabitat is a reliable source then keep; if not, I wouldn't oppose merging to Guerilla gardening. Peter James (talk) 17:50, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - it's also mentioned in Forbes (in passing), so it appears to be gaining notability. Diego (talk) 22:59, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - it's the kind of topic that people would turn to wikipedia to learn more about because there aren't many other neutral 3rd party sources on it. The article would benefit from talking about the disadvantages of the graffiti, especially damage to buildings and other structures due to the growth of the moss. spacesoon (talk) 21:25, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Diego. — Joaquin008 ^(talk) 10:54, 9 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. SK#1: no argument advanced for deletion (non-admin closure) czar · · 01:27, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Amar Prem[edit]

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

Possible Foregion Film. Bobherry talk 13:33, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. czar · · 13:53, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. czar · · 13:53, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. What is your rationale for deletion, that it's a foreign film? czar · · 13:54, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a notable topic; I found numerous results in Google Books Search. Bobherry, I want to assume good faith, but I am not sure why you would want to delete a film because it is foreign-language? Surely you have seen articles on other foreign-language films on Wikipedia. Erik (talk | contribs) 14:16, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the article is sourced and the movie even won some awards. Why should foreign movies be removed? Gmkeros (talk) 14:21, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. For this 1972 Hindi film, we have an exclusive article written 30 years after its release. Salih (talk) 17:30, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - meets film standards and is well written. Tolly 4 bolly 17:41, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Suggest immediate closure per WP:SNOW based on lack of a real argument for deletion and on editors' "Keep, obviously" tones. Erik (talk | contribs) 17:48, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep - clearly meets WP:NF, and the nomination does not mention any actual reason for deletion. --bonadea contributions talk 19:12, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep Notable film. Was a commercial hit, won awards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 00:47, 5 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. Survey sez reliable sources don't know enough about this group. Shii (tock) 06:52, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

World Energy Forum[edit]

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

Non-notable organization, article used as self-promotion based almost entirely on its own website. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 13:22, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. czar · · 13:55, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. czar · · 13:55, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Pure WP:spam.Truth or consequences-2 (talk) 15:04, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Lack of sources - there's lots of news articles/promo about meetings, but nothing obvious about the organisation. Widefox; talk 18:58, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. — Joaquin008 ^(talk) 16:14, 5 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. Ultimately, it comes down to significant coverage in reliable sources. There certainly is plenty of stuff in the papers about it, but no agreement on whether it is merely routine coverage or something substantial. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 11:09, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

1894–95 World Championship[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)

Is the match notable enough to warrant a standalone article? The article refers to it as "an exhibition football match" between the English and Scottish champions. As such, does it have any more official status than any other inter-club friendly match?
Was this match really considered as a "world championship" when it was played, or has this title been conferred on it subsequently? The article on the London Hearts website refers to it as the "Unofficial World Championship", whereas the StatCat (Sunderland) website calls it a "Friendly match" between "the newly crowned champions of England and Scotland". A newspaper report from the time simply calls it "the meeting of the English and Scottish League Champions". The only article I can find that confers the title World Championship is a Sunderland fansite. Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 09:42, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 09:43, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. 50% of the nominator's argument is an objection to the name, which is not a valid reason for deletion. Although it was an exhibition match, as it was in the late 19th century, there will be press coverage and it will be notable. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 11:21, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep 1. Despite the fact it's "only an exhibition match", at the time (when there were no international competitions on a club level), those games were the biggest club level games in the world! There is a reason those games were called the World Championship games, there is a reason the games attracted a big audience. Not only I think we should keep this article, I think we should have articles regarding the other World Championship Games on a club level (There were 3 more besides that one), because those games are a big part of football history and before FIFA those were THE international games. 2. There were many publications at the time which referred to those games as "world championship", and the fact that the hearts website refers to this game as the "unofficial world championship"... well at the time "unofficial" was the only type of World Championship you had, so it's perfectly fine. If you want, I wouldn't mind adding "unofficial" to the title of the article, though to be fair I don't see the point. Sunderland against Di Canio (talk) 12:07, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep historically interesting and important math that was a pre-cursor to international level competitions. GimliDotNet^{(Speak to me,Stuff I've done)} 12:19, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

100% agree. In fact, I think it would be good to write articles about the 3 other world championship games from that period (the ones won by Renton F.C. in 1888, Hibernian F.C. in 1887 and Heart of Midlothian F.C. in 1902). Sunderland against Di Canio (talk) 14:45, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. czar · · 13:59, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. czar · · 13:59, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. czar · · 13:59, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. czar · · 13:59, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- This was an international match at a time when inter5national competition was rare. The title is rather grander than the occasion, but is no worse that the "world series" baseball, which is essentially a US championship. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:20, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence that this was a notable, important or influential match. Saying "there will be press coverage" is moot; evidence notability please. Giant Snowman 17:37, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rename wrt being called World Championship, this is akin to the Baseball world series which is just the US and for two years Canada. At the time the only real countries playing were England and Scotland, so yes it was a world championship. As for being one match, the world series is the best of seven games between two teams, so again is comparable. I would however suggest renameing to include the word football in the title somewhere e.g. 1894–95 Football World Championship or 1894–95 World Championship (football) Martin451 (talk) 21:55, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's actually a great idea! That definitely should be done. Sunderland against Di Canio (talk) 06:19, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Arrogant and idiotic title. The namer assumes that this was the only world championship in that time period? If it gets kept, please move it to a more encyclopedic and informative title, so the reader knows it is not a hog calling contest, spitting contest, or yodelling competition. Edison (talk) 01:38, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I totally agree. I will add the word football in brackets afterwards. To be honest, didn't even think about it when creating the article. It was the only football world championship at the time, but football was not the only sport so good point. I just need to figure out how to do it. Sunderland against Di Canio (talk) 06:17, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Arrogant and idiotic title? Someone needs to read WP:AGF and WP:NPA, I think, and you're lucky the article creator either missed the aggressiveness, or is level-headed enough not to care. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 16:51, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Two comments - firstly, as it was a one-off match and did not span the whole season, it should just be "1895 world championship/whatever", in the same way as our articles on FA Cup finals are titled. And secondly, is there any evidence that it was actually billed as a world championship at the time? If not, then we shouldn't call it such.... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 06:52, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't really see the problem in the first comment. In boxing a world title is decided over one fight, and at the time the FIFA standards about how to decide who is the title holder were not developed yet. Regarding the second comment... if you write 1895 world championship on Google you have a lot of links about that specific game. It's true that this world championship game was unofficial, but to be fare, at the time nothing really was except the English and Scottish championship and cup. Also, even though the game was "unofficial", at the time no other game was called the world championship in football. Whenever a club level world championship was held, it was the same format: 1 game (except with the Hearts victory few years later which was held in two games because the first one finished 0-0), with the champions of England and Scottland competing for the title. That's the whole point, it wasn't a one off game, it's a format which was used at the time due to lack of other alternatives and for that reason is was the world championship. Sunderland against Di Canio (talk) 07:40, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You misunderstand my first point. The match took place on one date in 1895, therefore there is no reason whatsoever to mention 1894 in the title, in the same way that we have 2012 UEFA Super Cup, not 2011-12 UEFA Super Cup, because the match only takes place in one year -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 17:47, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Got it! I used it because that's the title I saw online, but I think it varies so I will change it. Sunderland against Di Canio (talk) 10:12, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I moved the article from "1894-95 world championship" to "1895 World Championship (football)" as few users suggested. I agree that it needs to be more obvious it's football we are talking about therefore the change was a good idea! Sunderland against Di Canio (talk) 10:11, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment In the British Newspaperarchive [17] I can only find one reference to this match being a World Championship: The Sunderland Dailly Echo and Shipping Gazette 30 April 1895 page 4. "The championship of the world is now settled, and Sunderland are the champions...." "....By-the-way are there any medals for the championship of the world?" Other newspapers call it a match between the English and Scottish champions. I wouldn't call matches between Scottish and English clubs rare. In 1894-95 Rangers played against Sunderland, Everton (twice), Aston Villa, Notts County, Leicester and Newcastle. Cattivi (talk) 16:57, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Whether they're rare or not is irrelevant. A match between the Scottish and English champions at this point was almost a de-facto world championship (this isn't about the name) as there were literally 3 or 4 major leagues in the entire world at that point, and the English and Scottish ones were far in advance of any other. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 17:13, 4 May 2013 (UTC

When only one out of ten newspapers (a local one) calls a match a world championship, is that enough to call this a world championship? Renton were called world champions decades after the game was played, this isn't the case for Sunderland (before 1950)Cattivi (talk) 17:55, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't matter what papers referred to it as World Championship, the fact is, there were papers which referred to it like that. No one referred to the game between Sunderland and Rangers as World Championship, that's why we don't have this discussion. Sunderland were referred to as World Champions for 6 years, until Hearts beat Tottenham and gained the title. Renton were called World Champions because they were the Scottish cup holders (no championship at the time) and they beat the English cup holders. Sunderland were referred to as World Champions for the same reason Hibernian and Hearts were, because they won the championship and beat another champion. That was the format for those type of games. Sunderland against Di Canio (talk) 19:07, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If this was true you would expect to find more than one newspaper report supporting this claim in the British Newspaperarchive [http://www.britishnewspaperarchive.co.uk/} The Renton-WBA game was actually called "Championship of the United Kingdom" and "Championship of the World" You can find more about it on page 11 West Bromwich Albion A Complete Record by Tony Matthews Breedon Books ISBN 1 873626 47 9. Sunderland The Complete Record by Rob Mason Mike Gibson and Barry Jackson ISBN 1 85983 472 8 doesn't mention this match at all. The 1902 "World Championahip game" wasn't a match between the league champions, it was a match between the cup holders. Cattivi (talk) 20:51, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah but to be fair football games in the past didn't get as much exposure as today. EVERY football game got mostly local attention from the parts which take part in it. When England-Scotland were having their famous games at the time... well, they wrote about it only in England and Scotland. In Germany for example people didn't really know or care about it. It's even more localized on a club level. The fact is, there were newspapers referring to this game as the world championship. The fact they were "local" doesn't really matter. Sunderland against Di Canio (talk) 06:57, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A random example in Dutch (de Atleet 25 november 1893 go to page 5) [18] There's also some English cycling news on that page. Cattivi (talk) 10:39, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No evidence that this match is covered in enough detail in reliable sources to warrant keeping it as a standalone article. It may be appropriate to move some of the info to the respective club season articles. If it is decided a standalone article is merited then I don't think 'World Championship' should be in the article title, as per the info provided above by Cattivi. Eldumpo (talk) 10:49, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No evidence that this match passes the general notability guideline either via contemporary or enduring non-trivial coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject.
I think too much is being read into a light-hearted reference in the Sunderland Echo; maybe that paper wouldn't have introduced the concept of "World Championship" had their local team lost? This was one of several friendly matches that Sunderland played in Scotland during that season: the StatCat page referred to by the nominator lists them on the left of the page, and describes this match as "a match between the newly crowned champions of England and Scotland." As also mentioned in the nomination, The Scotsman's report describes it just as a match featuring the English and Scottish champions.
The English papers in general listed it in their fixtures and results sections under "Ordinary matches" or "Club matches", a heading that included friendlies, county senior cups, benefit matches and similar. The longest English report I can find (in a selection of papers available via the British Library 19th century newspaper collection; not possible to supply generally accessible URLs), is in the Sheffield Independent which over 5 sentences described it as a match between "the rival league champions" which "lost some of its importance from the fact that both teams were without several of their regular players" but was "a capital game".
So it's a friendly for which neither club fielded a full-strength team, which didn't have an unusual level of coverage at the time, and has had approaching none since. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 14:37, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per Struway2. Nothing notable about this friendly. Argyle 4 Life^talk 17:38, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep an important game for it's time. Did get media attention and was named by it as the match for the championship of the world. PC poet robot (talk) 09:33, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closing administrator: This was the first edit by User:PC poet robot, who has since been blocked for breach of WP's username policy. -- Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 07:07, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment The match report in the Edinburgh Evening Times 29 April 1895 starts as follows: "The meeting of the league champions. Save for show purposes, such matches as are provided at the fag-end of a season by meetings of the English and Scottish League champions or the rival cup-holders are valueless." Cattivi (talk) 10:40, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - The Heart's website also referred to the game as the "Unofficial World Championship", and there were given references to different newspapers in the North-East that referred to it as the World Championship, so I think the article definitely qualifies. Maybe the name should be "unofficial world championship", but it's definitely an important match of the time that was referred to "championship of the world" for a reason. Sunderland against Di Canio (talk) 12:29, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Big keep. The sources from the time refer to the game as the world championship. The fact that those sources are mostly local doesn't matter. Long term even today this game is referred to as the world championship. The fact it was a champion-champion game, automatically made it the world championship and that was the reason why everyone called it "championship of the world". That also explains why so many people went to the game. Deleting this article would be ignorant. 81.171.159.172 (talk) 09:11, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: According to the match report, the reason for the size of the crowd (12,000) was "there being no other match of importance in town" – not exactly a ringing endorsement. Where are these "sources from the time" that keep being mentioned? Both Struway2 and Cattivi have access to online newspapers and neither have come up with anything other than the Sunderland Daily Echo claiming " Sunderland are the champions". In the absence of such sources, the match is no more than an end of season friendly, which has been over-hyped in recent times. Incidentally, the official Sunderland website page "Roll of Honour" doesn't mention this match, so if the club who won the match don't deem it of importance, why should Wikipedia? -- Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 10:11, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, the fact that the Sunderland Echo called it the World Championship is already a notable source. Second, the fact that there was "no other match of importance in town" doesn't exclude the fact that specific game was important. Again, when you write 1895 World Championship in Google what you get are mostly links referring to that game. Sunderland against Di Canio (talk) 10:27, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As you suggest, I have Googled "1895 World Championship": on the first page, there are 10 entries; the first 4 are to Wikipedia. The rest refer to the 1895 World Championships of cycling, baseball, speedskating, bird shooting etc. Mmm? -- Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 10:34, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, lets compare! I Google it (1895 football world championship). The first link is Wikipedia, which is fine! Many notable events or people get Wikipedia as the first link! I get [19], [20], [21]. Sunderland against Di Canio (talk) 11:51, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Its an encyclopaedic and notable topic. Rare competition at the time and cannot be compared to a modern day friendly in terms of notability or sourcing. Blethering Scot 21:55, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - people keep referring to this as a "competition", but all the evidence from contemporary sources suggests that it was arranged simply as just another end-of-season friendly, and only afterwards did people start to say "oh, they beat the Scottish champions, so that must make them world champions"......... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:47, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, it was referred to as "championship of the world" before that, but it was a friendly game. But many tournaments are "friendly", that doesn't make it less "big" (especially at a time when besides national tournaments most were "friendly"). Sunderland against Di Canio (talk) 17:14, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Is there actually any evidence it was billed in that way at the time as opposed to being described as such in more recent time.........? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:44, 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 incubate to Wikipedia:Article Incubator/Murder of Scott Guy. There is consensus that the event is notable, but the person is not. Letting the article remain in mainspace under a different title would likely run afoul of WP:BLP, so incubating until it is properly rewritten to be an article about the event. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 11:02, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ewen Macdonald[edit]

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

Non-notable ~~murderer~~, there's nothing here that rises above a normal murder case -- fails WP:PERP. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 08:14, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 08:16, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. gadfium 08:26, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: It clearly meets WP:PERP which says an article is notable when "The execution of the crime is unusual—or has otherwise been considered noteworthy—such that it is a well-documented historic event." This was one of the most widely covered investigations and trials in New Zealand history and Macdonald's offending was very unusual; it included midnight "revenge missions" which involved killing calves with a hammer and deliberately wasting $18,000 worth of milk. The case led to calls for a change in the right to silence - the law which enabled the judge to keep information about his previous offending from the jury. It was also notable because it raised the profile of Greg King making him New Zealand's most successful defence lawyer - and may have contributed to King's suicide two months later.

It is also notable because even though Macdonald was found not guilty, the police refused to look for anyone else indicating they believe the jury got it wrong. Offender9000 (talk) 09:09, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. In reply to the above, WP:PERP doesn't apply. WP:PERP applies to victims, criminals, and prominent people who are wrongly convicted. WP:PERP doesn't justify creating an article for people who were found not guilty. And Wikipedia isn't supposed to second-guess the outcome of the trial and say "they were found not guilty, but the police are treating it as guilty". Furthermore, WP:BLPCRIME discourages making articles for people who are accused but not convicted. If the murder is notable, create a separate article about the murder. Ken Arromdee (talk) 14:36, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per WP:1E. Note that he was found not guilty. Also the ref for the suicide of King doesn't mention suicide. Stuartyeates (talk) 09:13, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WP:1E does not apply as he committed a number of crimes which made him notable. He was found guitly of six different offences. The fact that he was found not guilty of murder does alter the extraordinary news coverage which made the case notable.Offender9000 (talk) 09:19, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

None of those offenses, not even all taken together, make someone notable, so BLP1E applies as stated. --Randykitty (talk) 19:20, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: In the current article and in the comment above Offender9000 refers to King's death as a suicide. I'm not seeing any references for this. Unless we have a solid reference, we shouldn't be saying this. Stuartyeates (talk) 09:30, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

He shot himself but I have removed the comment.Offender9000 (talk) 09:42, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Person was not even convicted, so this is certainly a serious BLP issue. Whatever anybody may suspect, it is not for Wikipedia to solve a crime. Whether or not King committed suicide has nothing to do with the article either, which is another BLP issue (BLP also applies to recently deceased persons; this issue could easily be handled, though, as King's death should just be removed from the article). In any case, even if Macdonald were convicted, BLP1E would still apply. But without a conviction, this is a slam dunk delete as far as I can see. --Randykitty (talk) 10:01, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: he was found not guilty of the murder but guilty of six other offences and sent to prison for five years - so BLP1E does not apply. Offender9000 (talk) 18:57, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Splendid example of BLP1E AFAICT -- the charge about "killing calves" is obviously not a ground for notability, to be sure. Wikipedia is not the place to "right wrongs" by making such an article. Collect (talk) 11:27, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: BLP1E AFAICT does not exist on Wikipedia.Offender9000 (talk) 19:01, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"AFAICT" = "As far as I can tell"... --Randykitty (talk) 19:20, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to Murder of Scott Guy per usual policy for naming articles about notable crimes. It's a very controversial and widely-discussed case in New Zealand, as can easily be seen from the press coverage. --Colapeninsula (talk) 12:53, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:30, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Move To Murder of Scott Guy, per Colapeninsula. I agree that as a bio this is a clear WP:BLP1E, but as an event it certainly seems to meet WP:GNG given the sources in the article. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 17:47, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Move as per the two comments above. I agree that Macdonald is not an appropriate subject for an article, but the murder case was one of the more prominent and controversial in recent New Zealand history.-gadfium 22:37, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Move I agree the case featured prominently in print media, TV and talkback radio. JaggerAgain (talk) 23:43, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete without prejudice to a different article being created (preferably at Murder of Scott Guy) to deal with this matter. The article as it stands is a massive BLP violation, leading the casual reader to believe that the named person was the murderer when in reality he was acquitted of that crime. Daveosaurus (talk) 06:51, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Rename as Murder of Scott Guy. This was one of the most prominent murder cases ever in New Zealand. The whole country seemed to take an interest in it. Cleverdickie (talk) 20:56, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Incubate then rename and rework the page as Murder of Scott Guy. WP:BLP1E certainly applies to the current subject. This is a major BLP violation and needs to be moved out of main-space and not moved back in until all issues have been resolved. J04n(talk page) 11:10, 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 no consensus, but would it be that horrible to merge with List of Violations of the Ceasefire of 21 November, 2012? Shii (tock) 06:59, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

List of Israeli Violations of the Ceasefire of 21 November, 2013[edit]

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

This article is entirely based on unreliable sources. For example, Al-Qassam Brigades (Hamas), several unknown pro-Palestinian sites and PressTV (Iranian regime's propaganda), among others. There is not a single source from a relevant newspaper. IranitGreenberg (talk) 06:13, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. czar · · 06:50, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. czar · · 06:50, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. czar · · 06:50, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Questions Can this be referenced to more reliable sources? Also, do the sources say that these were actually violations of the ceasefire? Nick-D (talk) 07:34, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I would expect that much of it and more of the same could be sourced from the United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs - occupied Palestinian territory (OCHA-oPt) very detailed Protection of Civilians (Weekly) and Humanitarian Monitor (Monthly) reports. Sean.hoyland - talk 12:56, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think the whole approach to these kind of issues is wrong in WP:ARBPIA. Having separate lists of things like "Israeli Violations" and "Palestinian rocket attacks" strikes me as a pretty dumb and misleading approach more suited to propaganda sites for nationalist drones. It's fine if the objective is article-scale half-truths, demonization of the enemy and presenting victimhood and agency in an ethnically segregated way. But we aren't supposed to be doing that. I think a better approach would be to build combined lists, timelines, that document events in the conflict no matter which belligerent carried them out and no matter which methods were used. In other words, I'm suggesting re-scoping/renaming/merging articles. So, keep for now and merge what can be merged to an article that probably doesn't exist yet along with rocket attack info. Also, I think the statements "This article is entirely based on unreliable sources" and "There is not a single source from a relevant newspaper" are not strictly true although they are nearly true. Sean.hoyland - talk 07:38, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sean, it's not the same at all. The lists of Palestinian rocket attacks are based on several important newspapers (no, I'm not talking about Arutz Sheva). Probably you prefer the New York Times to Jerusalem Post, but both sites report real rocket attacks and are considered reliable on this topic. The list of alleged "Israeli violations of the truce" is simply a fake and we can't trust its sources report the truth. This article does not belong to Wikipedia.--IranitGreenberg (talk) 08:38, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm curious why you think I would prefer the New York Times rather than the Jerusalem Post but that's for another time. Anyway, back to business, I didn't say they were the same. Clearly they aren't the same. But many articles/topics in Wikipedia, and especially in ARBPIA, are "fake" in both the sampling frame sense and the framing analysis sense. Editors in ARBPIA love to frame things in ways that just look bizarre, arbitrary and inherently problematic from a policy perspective to me. Perhaps I didn't explain myself very well. What I meant really was that it might be better to forget about the current fake frames/article titles/scopes, look at the actual data, the events, and document the notable events no matter which existing article contains them. For example, look at the events on April 28 and 30 in List of Israeli Violations of the Ceasefire of 21 November, 2013. Those are notable events, notable in the same way that a rocket attack reported by RS is notable. They should be in the same list/timeline. Sean.hoyland - talk 09:03, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I do think it's pretty impressive violating a ceasefire that won't be agreed for another seven months! How on earth did they manage that? -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:09, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment if you read it more closely the comma between november and 2013 indicates that it is the a list of violations conducted in 2013. Incidentally it links to another article for violations in 2012. The ceasefire seems to be named after it's date. Gmkeros (talk) 12:22, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Then it needs to be retitled (e.g. List of Israeli Violations of the Ceasefire of 21 November in 2013, because this is not what it currently says! A comma is often used like this in dates. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:54, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep First, there are sI agree with User:Sean.hoyland that these lists are problematic. Also I've noted that ones with Israeli casualties or Palestinian ill deeds multiply like bunnies but ones with more Palestinian casualties or Israeli ill deeds tend to get deleted regularly. (Like an editor without discussion changed 2008-2009 casualty list name to this title which someone else then got deleted.) This leads to a real WP:Systematic bias. Let's not add to it by deleting this article.

Second, the editor who nominated for deletion has only been editing a few weeks so does not know that 23 of the 60 citations are from reliable sources, i.e., Reuters, Al Jazeera Ma'an News Agency, Palestinian Centre for Human Rights (generally reliable). More importantly this news google archive search of Gaza Israel ceasefire from January to today shows about 150 returns, the majority reliable sources, discussing alleged and admitted violations of the ceasefire, as well as other related issues. CarolMooreDC🗽 15:25, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I can't believe it. Israel is the only country in the world which has an entire article in Wikipedia to be criticized and delegitimated, it's the only democracy in the Middle East but still is the only one compared with Apartheid South Africa... and you are complaining for "systematic bias" in favor of Israel?--IranitGreenberg (talk) 03:10, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment in reply: Hey, I'd like to see a Criticism of government article on every government on the planet... I'm quite disgusted that the same article on the US is called Anti-Americanism, as if criticism is a bad thing! I see criticism of China is in several parts of that article, another legit way to do it. Same with Russia. And North Korea. I am surprised no one's started the Criticism of the government of Iran article as one more excuse to bomb the hell out of Iran. But thanks for reminding me that the Israel article needs to mention the 2011 poll showing Israel was as popular as Iran and North Korea, i.e, at the bottom of the pile with them. CarolMooreDC🗽 03:49, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You know what is truly outrageous? An hypocrite deleted Criticism of the Iranian government. And you talk about systematic bias... And no, Jews were never too popular in the world, but here's another poll for you.--IranitGreenberg (talk) 04:01, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Palestine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:29, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Lacks WP:RS, constructed in a comically WP:POV manner. Clear WP:POVFORK that should probably be WP:SALTed. Plot Spoiler (talk) 19:20, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Which article is it POV forking exactly? Dlv999 (talk) 06:25, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Checking some of the sources, they tell about different incidents , but they don't outright say violations of the ceasefire, so it appears to be a grave violation of WP:SYNTH to list these incidents/attacks under the current headline (I did not check reliability of sources). Regards, Iselilja (talk) 19:39, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Checking some of the sources": 3 - 6 - 8? The ones that didn't have ceasefire in the article title or description? With all those sources, I'm sure a dozen solid ones could be found if someone did the research. In this case I'm not going to. But often I do and save the article's butt... CarolMooreDC🗽 03:49, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

References 39, 44, 46, 48, 67. In order to state in Wikipedia's voice that Israel has violated the ceasefire we need reliable sources that say so very clearly and unequivocally. I think ordinary news organizations will be a bit careful doing so in ordinary news reporting of specific incidents, so sources that are a bit more analytical may be needed. Iselilja (talk) 07:17, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The article is poorly sourced and excessively POV. --1ST7 (talk) 22:28, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but consider renaming from "violations" to something like "attacks and incursions". Reads as reasonably factual. The contents are one-sided, but coherent, and balanced by other articles. Many of the facts here could be further sourced via sources such as Protection of Civilians (Weekly) and Humanitarian Monitor (Monthly) reports.Truth or consequences-2 (talk) 15:16, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for good UN links to know about in general... CarolMooreDC🗽 17:18, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Doesn't seems so true that the article is "simply a fake" (nominator POV?). Adding to Carol's comment above regarding the sources, I have found few reports supporting the article with a fast search: [22] [23] (BBC), [24] (NYT times), [25] (reuters) --aad_Dira (talk) 01:04, 5 May 2013 (UTC).[reply]

Your first link is unrelated (event in the West Bank), and the other three are the same news about an Israeli targeted killing against an Islamic Palestinian militant responsible for a previous rocket attack against Eilat (it's not precisely a "violation of the ceasefire" with Hamas).--IranitGreenberg (talk) 02:17, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It should be noted that on aad_Dira's user page on the Arabic Wikipedia, he calls for the destruction of Israel.[26] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pulpykhann (talk • contribs) 23:29, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTNEWS, also some of the websites used as references do no appear to be reliable sources.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 03:34, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Seems like a good example of systemic bias in the topic area that the editors active in creating List of Palestinian rocket attacks on Israel, 2013, also believe that there should not be an equivalent article listing Israeli attacks on Gaza. I would support a name change per Truth or consequences-2. Also I would support a merge with List of Palestinian rocket attacks on Israel, 2013 to make a neutral balanced article documenting attacks by both parties to the conflict - absent a merge the second best option is to have the two articles or delete them both for balance. Dlv999 (talk) 06:18, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Another solution is to delete both articles per WP:NOTNEWS. But if both are kept, a merging into a single article would potentially create one more neutral article.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 13:20, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with RCLC. Pluto2012 (talk) 14:11, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. To underline the risks of bias in selective retention or deletion of articles like this, as Dlv points out, see Nancy Kanwisher, Johannes Haushofer and Anat Biletzki's research on one period of exchanges between Israel and the Gaza Strip. They addressed the problem of skewed reportage, showing statistically that the media blitzes on showcasing Palestinian rocket attacks and presenting Israeli bombing as ‘reactions’, doesn’t reflect the actual patterns of cause and effect. If articles are permitted listing Palestinian attacks, by parity, one can hardly delete the corresponding articles listing Israeli assaults.Nishidani (talk) 09:34, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I remember that interesting article. It came out of MIT's Center for International Studies although the article doesn't mention that. Sean.hoyland - talk 11:13, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A very large number of articles are framed, (inadvertently perhaps because it only reflects mainstream media (biased) reportage), to make the Palestinian-cause and Israeli-reaction narrative look normal, whereas their later research Reply to Golan and Rosenblatt:Revisiting the statistical analysis of the Israeli–Palestinian conflict confirms that both sides retaliate: retaliation is reciprocal. An example of perfectly good RS used to break WP:NPOV because the the best RS reflect WP:Systemic bias. That is why their research, and the follow up, which includes critiques by Rosenblatt and Golan and others, (the paper above has a short bibliography down to April 2011) should be de rigueur on the relevant pages, like these two, to state the obvious. I hope to see someone with the relevant statistical background here begin to add that in, or create an article, since it is fundamental research, and yet most RS ignore it. Nishidani (talk) 13:39, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Some people must be confused. Foreign media around world are generally biased and hostile to Israel. This is just a little example: Why all digital newspapers publish an image of a terrorist's relative, but not a photo related to an Israeli civilian killed in the West Bank the same day?--IranitGreenberg (talk) 13:47, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry but we are dealing here with the science of statistical analysis, conducted through peer review, to address queries raised on this deletion proposal. It is a meme that Israel is the victim of unprovoked unilateral attacks from Gaza. It is a meme in some quarters that the world's media is biased against Israel. Neither is to be believed until statistical analysis shows where the probabilities lie. The New York Times (Jodi Rudoren) wrote an article on the Golan barrier with Syria yesterday, from Mount Hazika, Israel. Though several bloggers noted the error on the talk page, they won't correct the error to reflect the facts. Every one in the real world knows that the Golan, let alone Mt Hazika, is not in Israel. This is no place to list an infinite number of journalistic oversights from any personal perspective. Nishidani (talk) 13:53, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge in List of Violations of the Ceasefire of 21 November, 2012 because this topic is so anecdotical that it doesn't deserve to be cut in two articles. NPoV will be easier to manage if all "violations" are dealt together. Pluto2012 (talk) 14:08, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:V. Barely any, if any, of the incidents listed are described by reliable sources as violations of a cease fire.--brew crewer (yada, yada) 16:41, 7 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. Nom withdrawn (SK#1) (non-admin closure) czar · · 06:54, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Desreta Jackson[edit]

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

Delete I believe that this actor fails notability specifically found in WP:NACTOR Only shows one movie a Deep Purple. No awards won and when looking for sources [[27]] it's coming up blank. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 05:17, 3 May 2013 (UTC) Odd I guess the difference is quotation marks [[28]]. Interesting my apologies, withdrawn. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 05:29, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. czar · · 06:51, 3 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. with no prejudice against speedy renomination (non-admin closure) czar · · 07:45, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Christian Ronald Sitepu[edit]

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

Contested prod that I placed on the article. Even though this basketball player evidently plays for the Indonesian national team, which is not enough for inherent notability, a Google search reveals he doesn't pass GNG. The only websites that turn up (aside from this one, which only lists at-a-glance facts about him) are facebook, twitter, flickr and other mirror sites of the sort. There is no third party coverage, let alone substantial coverage that would be make him pass GNG. Jrcla2 (talk) 19:16, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:05, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:05, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:05, 20 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, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:57, 26 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, czar · · 05:14, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Question Not my field, but why is playing for the national team not enough for notability ? DGG ( talk ) 17:29, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The reason is because Indonesia does not have a respectable national team in basketball. If someone plays for the US, France, Argentina, Spain, etc, they're inherently notable. Indonesia's basketball history is generally terrible. Additionally, this player does not pass GNG. If he had an article on the Indonesian Wikipedia, I might be more swayed to keep, but the lack of an interwiki on his own native language Wikipedia says a lot. Jrcla2 (talk) 06:35, 8 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 12:41, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Borzák Márton[edit]

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

The topic has no coverage in reliable sources and the provided references are mostly from primary sources alone. smtchahal^(talk) 07:53, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Denmark-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:09, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hungary-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:09, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:09, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:09, 20 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, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:52, 26 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, czar · · 05:13, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I am not finding any sources that could attest to the subject's notability. The article text does list various awards and exhibitions (which I flagged for citation and none has been added). Looking at them again, it isn't clear that any would be sufficient to demonstrate notability anyway. AllyD (talk) 19:36, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per AllyD and nom. If Studio Borzak had an article, you might have an argument for a redirect, but that's not the case here. You might also find, as per WP:USUAL, that this subject ends up working on a notable project or otherwise becoming more notable - and then you might consider an article. But there is no evidence - and no sourcing - that indicates that at this time. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 12:39, 9 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 soft delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:47, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

BusinessF1 Magazine[edit]

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

Short lived magazine that doesn't meet WP:GNG, as the only sources available concern libel cases. It also has significant verifiability and promotional problems, as it appears to be written by its former editor as a puff piece. QueenCake (talk) 18:11, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:58, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:58, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:58, 20 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, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:56, 26 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, czar · · 05:12, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. As it stands, the article does not provide any sources to support notability. Ping me if this changes. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:33, 3 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:22, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Fuad Gazibegovič[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTY. Soccerway confirms he's played for NK Zvijezda Gradačac of the Premier League of Bosnia and Herzegovina but per WP:FPL that's not fully professional; all other clubs he's played for compete at very low tiers. Sideways713 (talk) 14:43, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. hmssolent\^{Let's convene} _{My patrols} 16:16, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. hmssolent\^{Let's convene} _{My patrols} 16:16, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Slovenia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:37, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:39, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - If transfermarkt is to be believed (see here), he made 29 appearances in the Slovenian First League, which is listed at WP:FPL, in 2007/08. Sir Sputnik (talk) 16:54, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, thanks for spotting that. That team has sunk rapidly. I'm still not sure he meets WP:GNG but for now I'll withdraw the nomination and give the creator some time to find reliable sources. Sideways713 (talk) 17:05, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Is the Slovenian top league really fully professional, though? The source given at WP:FPL keeps mentioning amateur players, but my Slovenian isn't too good... Sideways713 (talk) 17:21, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Transfermarkt is not a reliable source. So two issues here - did he actually play? And is the league fully-professional or not? Giant Snowman 19:32, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Here it is stated that "If a player has signed a contract with a club and his salary is at least 500€ per month, he is counted as professional". According to PrvaLiga official website, he played 29 matches for Livar in 2007–08, so Transfermarkt stats are correct. Matej1234 (talk) 11:34, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That indicates that there are players in the league who earn less that €500 per month, and are not considered professional. Therefore the league is not [[WP:FPL|fully-professional. Giant Snowman 14:45, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 14:45, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - sorry, mis-read the above, does indeed appear to meet WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 12:33, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Actually, that source does not mention anything about First division amateur players, thing about 500€ salaries is meant for ALL leagues which are operated by the Football Association of Slovenia, as this are general Slovenian football competition rules and not Slovenian PrvaLiga rules. Matej1234 (talk) 10:50, 25 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, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:35, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - 29 matches in a fully pro league makes him pass WP:NFOOTY. Discussions on whether the Slovenian top league is a fully pro league should be taken on WT:FPL. That this topic does not pass GNG is hard to measure without local-language sources, but with 29 matches in a fully pro league we presume that the player in question has received enough coverage in reliable sources to pass the general notability guideline. Mentoz86 (talk) 12:30, 26 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, czar · · 02:58, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP In 2007-08 he played in Prva Liga Deb (talk) 10:33, 3 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. Whereas nobody supported deletion, the rest is not clear: Whether the article should be moved, merged, incubated, or just kept.--Ymblanter (talk) 09:29, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

10 Essential Public Health Services[edit]

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

This is more an essay than an encyclopedia article BigPimpinBrah (talk) 00:53, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:42, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I think this article has a place here, possibly under another name. It is basically a well referenced expansion of this page from the CDC. Maybe it could be merged to Public health but that article is already long. It apparently passed Articles for Creation. --MelanieN (talk) 02:43, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment It may be well-referenced but it isn't encyclopedic at all, the article is basically an essay on how health organizations should operate and therefore a case of WP:NOTESSAY as well as WP:NOTMANUAL --BigPimpinBrah (talk) 03:15, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Move and rewrite A better title would be something like Public health services, and a rewrite is needed to eliminate the extensive government jargon and over specific examples. e.g. " educational activities that promote improved health should be disseminated" DGG ( talk ) 01:03, 24 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, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:25, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Question Based upon the creator ID, this appears to be a group paper for a healthcare policy and management course; does the submission of a group's work under a single ID make this a copyright/licensing issue? Novangelis (talk) 18:34, 2 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 · · 02:52, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Edit and Merge The level of detail is much too great, border on violating WP:NOT PAPERS. Edit it significantly perhaps to include just the names of the 10 services, and merge into Center for Disease Control and Prevention.--Crunch (talk) 12:57, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The section with the expanded list of services and a selected example of each is not appropriate content. Stripped of the examples, and reformatted as a list with explanations, the expanded list might have value, depending on the merge target. Most targets I can think of do not warrant the expanded content. (I am reluctant to expend time hunt if the above copyleft issues are unresolved.) The history section might have value in an appropriate target, but would be overly weighted for the CDC article (which is in dismal shape, IMHO). The "Public health" article describes the functions in terms of the WHO model (Public health#Public health programs), so in addition to length issues, integrating a different model defining public health functions by a simple merge would be problematic. I looked at the United States Public Health Service as an alternate target since the CDC is one of its agencies, but it didn't fit there, especially since IOM is not under its purview. At the moment, a section, "National Public Health Performance Standards Program"[29] in the CDC article does seem the best target, by default.Novangelis (talk) 15:25, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It may not be perfect, but it is fixable. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 11:50, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Incubate or userfy (to whom I don't know). Right now this is not an encyclopedic entry (WP:NOT PAPERS) but with revision it could become one or possibly some selective merging into suitable topics. Let's move it out of main-space and let any interested parties take a swing at it. J04n(talk page) 11:01, 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. The consensus is that these articles do not pass WP:GNG and thus in the present form can not exist in the English Wikipedia. The keep votes, unfortunately, are not based on the policies. No projudice against redirect creation.--Ymblanter (talk) 08:01, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Embassy of Belarus, Ottawa[edit]

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

fails WP:GNG. recent AfDs indicate embassies are not inherently notable. Those wanting to keep must show coverage. Also nominating:

High Commission of Bangladesh, Ottawa
Embassy of Bulgaria, Ottawa
Embassy of Austria, Ottawa
Embassy of Haiti, Ottawa LibStar (talk) 10:18, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:02, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Austria-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:03, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Belarus-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:03, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bulgaria-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:03, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:03, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Caribbean-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:03, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:03, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to their corresponding bilateral relations articles -- 70.24.250.103 (talk) 23:27, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:GNG. Iketsi (talk) 01:49, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Having these these articles does no harm. --Zayeem ^(talk) 06:44, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOHARM not a reason to keep. LibStar (talk) 06:51, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I'm not sure if there is any appropriate guideline for these type of articles, but going with the other articles of the same category, I don't think there is any fault in keeping these articles. P.S I'm not trying to reason WP:ALLORNOTHING! --Zayeem ^(talk) 08:46, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a reason for keeping. could you try by actually demonstrating existence of sources to meet WP:ORG. rather than WP:JUSTAVOTE. LibStar (talk) 08:55, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You didn't get my point, I'm not sure about what is the main criteria to keep these articles, WP:GNG is not applicable to every article, while they also don't seem to fall under WP:ORG. Moreover, I have never seen any deep media coverage on any embassy in the world. --Zayeem ^(talk) 09:09, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You've provided zero reason for why these articles are notable. And zero sources. LibStar (talk) 09:33, 23 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, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:59, 26 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, czar · · 02:47, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but could the different embassies maybe be folded into a single page on embassies in Ottawa? Gmkeros (talk) 14:34, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Such a page already exists: List of diplomatic missions in Ottawa. Ravendrop 23:48, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It provides little encyclopedic information about the embassy and basically explains what an embassy is. An article about embassies in Ottawa would be useful. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:22, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: I concur with Robert McClenon. --Iketsi (talk) 15:49, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all Nothing notable and no independent, in-depth sources for any of these. Fails WP:GNG. Ravendrop 23:48, 5 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. Stifle (talk) 21:47, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yoga Korunta[edit]

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

There is no independent or scholarly research that shows the authenticity or existence of this text. Mike697 (talk) 01:59, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:39, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. czar · · 02:38, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. czar · · 02:38, 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, czar · · 02:38, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. One source? Is a detailed, policity-based argument even necessary in this case? It seems self evident. MezzoMezzo (talk) 10:03, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- Received enough significant coverage to pass WP:GNG. The validity or non-validity of the manuscript is not an issue -- but rather that it is a subject of discussion in reliable sources, such as Huffinton Post, book, this scholarly journal article, magazine, etc. — CactusWriter ^(talk) 14:48, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, sources added by CactusWriter appear to demonstrate notability. ~ mazca ^talk 17:05, 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. Already deleted by RHaworth (talk · contribs) as G12 (blatant copyright infringement). ~ mazca ^talk 17:03, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Rich Lesser[edit]

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

No WP:RS to establish notability for a businessman and/or per WP:GNG. Appears to be a WP:PROMO. Qworty (talk) 01:53, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:36, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please say in common words so that other Wikipedian can contribute. Thank you. New worl (talk) 02:54, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Qworty claims that the article lacks reliable sources (WP:RS) to establish that the subject meets Wikipedia's General Notability Guidelines (WP:GNG) and that the article seems to be overly promotional (WP:PROMO). WP:RS and WP:GNG are absolute requirements for all articles on Wikipedia. Dricherby (talk) 22:39, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Dricherby. I have added another source for the article. Please tell me if it meets WP:RS now. Regarding WP:GNG, I am not sure how the article could be labeled so. Best, New worl (talk) 15:41, 2 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 · · 02:27, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete-Does not pass Wikipedia's guidelines for notability. The addition of another source did not change this. --Crunch (talk) 23:22, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete -- per WP:G12. Entire article is a copy-paste from this source. I have tagged it for deletion. — CactusWriter ^(talk) 14:31, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it does refer to that page - however, the information on the page is factual in nature, and does not express an opinion. It is rather peculiar that an article about a CEO of a major international firm is not considered notable enough, especially considering the same firm's ex-CEO was considered a notable enough topic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MariaDraganova (talk • contribs) 05:37, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 07:49, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comparison of rocket propellants[edit]

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

Proposing article for deletion. No verifiable sources; little content. Confusing to Wikipedia readers. N2e (talk) 01:49, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

DELETE, as nom. N2e (talk) 01:49, 3 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 3. Snotbot t • c » 02:26, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. czar · · 03:40, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If it were sourced, it could be merged to Rocket propellant, otherwise delete. Clarityfiend (talk) 03:55, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Rocket propellant should be comprehensive enough so that readers can make their own comparisons. In fact that should be the main focus of that article. No need for this one. Borock (talk) 04:05, 3 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 keep. Stifle (talk) 21:48, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Blades of Courage (Skate!)[edit]

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

Unsourced article about a non-notable film. I am unable to find any reliable sources. - Mr X 02:09, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. czar · · 03:42, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I found a couple of sources: [30] and [31]. However, the first article only minimally discusses this film in an overview of other ice skating movies, and the second is a self-published blog. Perhaps there are more sources offline due to the film's age, but chances seem slim that an 80's English-language made-for-TV movie is notable without the internet having more on it.-- Atlantima ~✿~ (talk) 02:24, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Changing my !vote to Keep based on new evidence of multiple awards and offline sources.-- Atlantima ~✿~ (talk) 15:22, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and continue improvements. I find it quite difficult to believe a multiple Gemini Awards-winning film[32] did not receive any commentary or review. Then I looked at the poor "Find sources" set up by the AFD template and realized it did not do readers a service. Let's do a proper search shall we, before condemning an award-winning film. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 23:21, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Just a few better search suggestions. More possible:

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

Keep -- Nominated for 5 Gemini Awards and the winner of 3 including the 1988 Best TV Movie, it passes the notability criteria for WP:MOVIE. As mentioned by MQS, the commonly known name is Skate, so that is the name to be found in sources such as the Toronto Star and a review on page 199 of the book A Century of Canadian Cinema. — CactusWriter ^(talk) 01:46, 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) 07:46, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Tim Radcliffe[edit]

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

Fails WP:NMMA, possibly WP:GNG. LlamaAl (talk) 01:37, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. czar · · 02:16, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. czar · · 02:16, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. czar · · 02:16, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails WP:NMMA. NodachiFury (talk) 20:57, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment NodachiFury has been confirmed as a sock puppet of IronKnuckle and has been blocked indefinitely. Entity of the Void (talk) 22:24, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete With no top tier fights and only routine sports coverage, subject fails both WP:NMMA and WP:GNG. Papaursa (talk) 16:58, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NMMA with no top tier fights. Entity of the Void (talk) 22:16, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete I expected there to be more coverage for Ultimate Challenge MMA champions, but unless someone can find them then this fighter does not meet WP:NMMA] or WP:GNG. Mkdw ^talk 23:21, 9 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) 07:24, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

List of Star Wars superweapons[edit]

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

unsourced WP:CRUFT - the fact that this has lasted 5 years since its PROD without a source added kind of speaks for itself. Ansh666 01:10, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- The only super weapon that is notable is the Death Star, and it has an article. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 01:39, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. czar · · 02:16, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. czar · · 02:17, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. czar · · 02:17, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete agreed, the only notable one is the Death Star, and that's covered elsewhere. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:09, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wookiepedia might be a better fit for this Gmkeros (talk) 15:09, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:12, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Completely unsourced. Not worth reworking. Death Star already has article, as does the sourced list of Star Wars weapons. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:16, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure of the target, but should probably be merged somewhere, per WP:ATD. While I agree there is little hope of any of these is individually notable, it's also true that each can be sourced to primary sources, meeting V, and thus mergeable to an article that wouldn't have to rely exclusively on such primary sources. I also agree with Gmkeros' unbolded suggestion that if this is to be deleted Transwikiing it first is appropriate. Jclemens (talk) 02:55, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as redundant and unsourced. Agree with Gmkeros and Jclemens re transwiki.Truth or consequences-2 (talk) 15:22, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Wookieepedia is the site that'd be the right place for this type of stuff. Pretty much only the Death Star is notable. Zappa O Mati 03:58, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete since this list does not meet Wikipedia's standards for writing about fiction, and I cannot seem to find coverage from reliable sources that discusses this particular grouping. However, I would be fine with a brief mention elsewhere. Perhaps as part of a more general section at superweapon about such superweapons in fiction? Erik (talk | contribs) 18:10, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not that this AFD needs anymore delete !votes, but much of the article seems to be WP:OR or fancruft that has not been covered by reliable sources. Mkdw ^talk 06:31, 9 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 Mediæval Bæbes. (non-admin closure) czar · · 08:13, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Emily Ovenden[edit]

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

This subject is not the actual topic of substantial coverage in multiple reliable sources (WP:GNG). She does receive passing mention by third party sources actually covering Mediæval Bæbes. She also falls very far short of WP:MUSICBIO — her writing and other band memberships are decidedly insignificant. She receives more coverage (still not substantial though) when less reliable sources are considered. I'll note being the subject of a painting is not, itself, coverage; and family relations don't help her WP:INHERIT notability. Also, much coverage is actually regarding upcoming band performances and events; this coverage ahead of time isn't even good to state the event occurred. Perhaps a redirect to Mediæval Bæbes might be in order, but most members of that ensemble (there have been many) are not redirects. JFHJr (㊟) 01:00, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. czar · · 02:18, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Mediæval Bæbes. If she was a full-time member of DragonForce she might get notability for being in 2 notable bands, but currently doesn't seem to meet any of WP:MUSICBIO. --Colapeninsula (talk) 13:02, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I fail to see how self-publishing a novel adds to notability either, or why this is even mentioned in the article. Singing backing vocals on DragonForce does not seem much of an achievement either! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.7.94.218 (talk) 16:29, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Mediæval Bæbes. I did try and rescue this article a while ago, but there really isn't much going for it!Theroadislong (talk) 22:45, 9 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 Regular Show characters. Consensus that we shouldn't have a standalone article, some support for a redirect, and since these are cheap... Michig (talk) 07:40, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Mordecai Blue jay[edit]

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

Completely unencyclopedic page, comprised 100% fancruft page with no citations. Grammarxxx ^{(What'd I do this time?)} 00:56, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - did you mean UNencyclopedic? Ansh666 01:55, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, thank you. Would you like to take a stance on the deletion? Grammarxxx ^{(What'd I do this time?)} 05:38, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Now that we've got that cleared up, sure! Ansh666 05:42, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. czar · · 02:18, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. czar · · 02:18, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. czar · · 02:19, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, along with Rigby Raccon; the other Regular Show character articles have been PROD'd. List of Regular Show characters should be enough. Ansh666 05:42, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

note: if someone would like to add that to this AfD, I don't know how to do that... Ansh666 05:44, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete — These aren't particularly notable characters. — Confession0791 ^talk 06:42, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete redundant to the character list. I don't even think it should be redirected because I doubt "Mordecai Blue jay" (with that capitalisation) is even the character's official name. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 12:39, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - As stated above, the List of Regular Show characters is enough. - Fumitol|talk|cont 14:30, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Locked redirect to List of Regular Show characters Somewhat notable, but certainly not deserving of a full page, and the title is at least a plausible redirect. Nate • (chatter) 19:00, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Regular Show characters, which I just did. Mewtwowimmer (talk) 01:01, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Maybe I'm wrong, but I don't think you're supposed to do that before the AfD is closed... Ansh666 04:04, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - We have not hit seven days yet, so the article has been reverted back. Nate • (chatter) 08:13, 8 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) 07:36, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Gumday[edit]

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

Unsourced article about a non-notable web site. I am unable to find any reliable sources. - Mr X 00:07, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. czar · · 00:13, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Unsourced article about a website that has essentially no content. See [[33]]. I could not find a single source other than the website itself. Fails both WP:INTERNET AND WP:COMPANY --Crunch (talk)
Delete major failure of WP:WEB. Pitiful Alexa rank of 2,127,515 confirms this is very, very non-notable. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 12:36, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew, please keep your opinions to yourself regarding Alexa if you are not a web developer. You'd know why otherwise. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tebryne (talk • contribs) 13:41, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:Web, no assertion of notability and no significant coverage online from WP:Reliable sources. Could have been speedy deleted per WP:CSD#A7. Evident WP:Conflict of interest by article's creator, following quick web search for creator's account name and website name. Captain Conundrum (talk) 12:33, 7 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.