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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Michaelzeng7 (talk) 00:51, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Orobius[edit]

Orobius (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Article about a literary figure, based on the Deipnosophistae, but written like a historical fact. Any historians here? Please take care of it. Ben Ben (talk) 23:39, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Orobius or Orbius appears to have been a historical figure. He's mentioned in the very context that Athenaeus reports in the 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica. Simply because the Deipnosophistae is a work of literature doesn't mean that it doesn't describe real persons or events. This article may benefit from a rewrite, and if possible in-line citations, or at least multiple sources. But we don't delete articles simply because they need to be improved. P Aculeius (talk) 00:23, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Ben Ben (talk) 23:44, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. czar · · 00:13, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Yep, historical figure with a primary source supported by a good modern source.  davidiad { t } 01:04, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per WP:POLITICIANS, I guess, but there seems to be some confusion. Broughton gives two Orbii: Publius Orbius, a presumed praetor for 65, and propraetor in 64; and (in the suppl. vol. 3) Lucius Orbius around 189. The current article links to Mithradates, who wasn't born till 134 and thus would pertain to Publius, not Lucius. It may be that we should just have an Orbius page (or Orbia (gens)?) since so little is known of either of them. Cynwolfe (talk) 14:33, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ferguson, Hellenistic Athens 445 with n. 1 (whence Pritchett's "Lucius") makes it look as though there's no intended identification of this figure and Broughton's Lucius, but I don't have access to Magistrates, so I can't tell if he addresses the same evidence.  davidiad { t } 18:17, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: not a literary but a historical figure. The identification with "Lucius Orbius" agrees with the footnote in the new edition of the Deipnosophists by S. D. Olson (vol. 2 [2006] p. 529 note 162), who says "Lucius Orbius, a distinguished Roman resident of Delos", but no references. I haven't looked further at the possible sources for this. Andrew Dalby 18:22, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Footnote: Ben Ben may well have been surprised, because the Deipnosophists is generally described as a fictional dialogue. Yes, that is how it is structured. But this structure serves as a vehicle for the author's historical knowledge, which is wide-ranging and usually accurate. Andrew Dalby 20:38, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Close and keep Thank you for your explanation. Even if nobody attempted to improve the article I step back from wanting it deleted. EOD for me. --Ben Ben (talk) 21:13, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:42, 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 delete. --BDD (talk) 05:47, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Juan González (Cosmos Footballer)[edit]

Juan González (Cosmos Footballer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. – Michael (talk) 23:29, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. – Michael (talk) 23:33, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - per nom. He has not played in a fully pro league or received significant coverage in reliable source, meaning the article fails WP:NSPORT and WP:GNG. Sir Sputnik (talk) 23:46, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. czar · · 00:14, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. czar · · 00:14, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. czar · · 00:14, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. GiantSnowman 14:05, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - fails WP:NFOOTY. AdventurousSquirrel (talk) 07:17, 6 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) 12:30, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - unnotable as he hasn't played at a significant enough level, failing guidelines as mentioned by others above. C679 22:09, 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 withdrawn. --BDD (talk) 05:50, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Division insignia of the United States Army[edit]

Division insignia of the United States Army (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

As per Category:Wikipedia image galleries, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Strategic Air Command Group and Wing emblems gallery, and Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Field Army insignia of the United States Army this article is an image gallery that should actually reside on Commons. The appropriate gallery has been created at http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Division_insignia_of_the_United_States_Army. Thus this article has been listed for deletion. Buckshot06 (talk) 21:56, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: see also WP:Galleries. Buckshot06 (talk) 22:47, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Withdrawn by Nominator: Starting this series of deletion discussions, I believed I was acting in accordance with the WP guidelines on image galleries. It appears that community consensus may not match the actual wording of the guidelines, and this deletion debate is turning into a policy discussion. Thus I withdraw the nomination, without prejudicing my right to renominate this article for deletion at a later date. Buckshot06 (talk) 02:00, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Buckshot06 (talk) 22:13, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States-related deletion discussions. czar · · 22:32, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. czar · · 22:32, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep This is a discriminate collection of images with a specific encyclopedic focus. Commons will never have the encyclopedic content in its galleries that is already present here, thus this gallery is non-duplicative of Commons' efforts. Jclemens (talk) 01:32, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Um...what encyclopedic content are you referring to? There is none in this 'article'. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:33, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • The references for a start. Why are there no sources listed on Commons? And I keyed in Strategic Air Command Group and Wing emblems gallery to Wikipedia and was not taken to Commons. So apparently the deletion was not complied with. What evidence is there that Wikipedia users will be able to find them? Hawkeye7 (talk) 05:16, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note the Commons gallery is at 'Strategic Air Command Emblems'. The approved way of linking Commons galleries is through the tag/link box which can be inserted anywhere in an article. Buckshot06 (talk) 06:18, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What is that? Where does it say to do that? The only way I know to link to commons is like commons:Strategic Air Command Emblems but it is not working in redirection pages, and the commons page does not come up on a wikipedia search. Hawkeye7 (talk) 06:23, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You may not be aware thus of things like

Buckshot06 (talk) 09:45, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oh that thing. Not relevant for something like this. The procedures say that the deleted page should have been replaced soft links, but this was not done. Hawkeye7 (talk) 12:12, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Abstain. Seems like a discriminate list to me as well. Agree with Jclemens. Ps. On second thought, abstain per nom's rationale about galleries, and since Commons gallery was created. Ping me on talk if anyone presents a new argument they think I should review. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:17, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Proposal I hadn't seen the AFD on the Corps insignia page or I would have piped up there. I had the idea awhile ago to convert these pages more into a list-format, with the description and history of each emblem listed on a table. see this example. I just got as far as one image example in that table, but it occurs to me that these pages would be the appropriate place for the heraldry information for the insignia. —Ed!^(talk) 11:08, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Withdrawn see above Buckshot06 (talk) 02:01, 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. --BDD (talk) 05:52, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

R.D. Peoples[edit]

R.D. Peoples (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

After I went through this article to see what was really there it became clear that there was nothing there. The main contributor is a fan whose fansite (a facebook site I removed along the way) was used as a "reference"--the other references are of a kind. We're talking about a person who's supposedly a famous rapper and martial artist et cetera--but these are all claims that aren't verified properly. Drmies (talk) 21:46, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. czar · · 22:32, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. czar · · 22:32, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Non-notable. When things as insignificant as blue belts are included, it's a red flag. HillbillyGoat (talk) 05:48, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete References don't hold up. AdventurousSquirrel (talk) 07:25, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Non notable musician. Koala15 (talk) 19:44, 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 keep. (non-admin closure) czar · · 23:54, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Jessica Nigri[edit]

Jessica Nigri (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

The coverage in Google News may look impressive, but none of seems to be from reliable sources--like, eh, print media. This person is not covered enough to warrant an article in an encyclopedia, albeit an online encyclopedia. Drmies (talk) 21:39, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Update: I just saw that there was a previous AfD, whose results give me no reason to change my mind. Drmies (talk) 21:47, 4 May 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 · · 22:34, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. czar · · 22:34, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as per nom Robert McClenon (talk) 22:42, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. Well... you don't have to be covered in print media to really be considered notable as long as the websites that have given her coverage are considered to be reliable. The big thing here is that while I've seen reliable sites mention her, they're pretty much posting galleries of her work. While she's pretty much known for cosplaying (and looking freaking hot while doing so), we still need more in-depth coverage, which is what I'm not entirely seeing here. It's sort of a borderline thing here. Since she's really received the most coverage for her winning the contest to portray Starling, there might be merit in creating a subsection in the article that mentions her and redirect to there. I'm thinking that it would be best served as a section named "Marketing and promotion" and say something along the lines of "In 2012 the company created a contest to choose a model to portray Juliet Starling at conventions. Jessica Nigiri, known for her detailed cosplay of characters from games, comics, and shows such as Gears of War and Pokemon, was named the winner and portrayed Starling at several conventions that same year." Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:27, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Btw: print media are dying. (But even then for example Complex and PSOM are print media alright.) --Niemti (talk) 06:31, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• That would give us a 7-paragraph interview in Complex. I don't know what PSOM means. Drmies (talk) 01:58, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - I see coverage in multiple RSes. Looks to me like it meets WP:GNG. May never reach FA status, but it meets the minimum inclusion criteria. At worst it should me merged into Lollipop Chainsaw, not deleted. -Thibbs (talk) 13:18, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speaking of which, Juliet Starling also deserves her own article. --Niemti (talk) 13:30, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Which one of those websites are deemed reliable, besides, as pointed out above, Complex? Drmies (talk) 01:58, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Of the ones cited in the article I see GameZone, Official PlayStation Magazine, and Kotaku which are all listed as reliable at WP:VG/RS. There are other sources like this from Destructoid (written by Destructoid's associate editor). I haven't really done any searching beyond that, but the minimum inclusion criterion is coverage in multiple RSes and it seems we have that here. Even if deletion is off the table, anybody could propose a merge on the talk page or at WP:PM. -Thibbs (talk) 05:14, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep - lots of mentions in possibly reliable sources. Possibly being overly inclusionist here, because problematic IMO is that there seems to be very little biographical information available; even her date of birth in the first line is unsourced. AdventurousSquirrel (talk) 07:38, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

OPSM, not PSOM OPM. Birth date: [1] --Niemti (talk) 10:08, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - There's enough coverage from reliable sources to meet the WP:GNG. (WP:VG/S shows there is consensus that many of the sources listed already are reliable. Sergecross73 msg me 13:03, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Enough coverage to meet GNG, and one of the more notable cosplayers. Due to the lack of stuff to actually write about a merge may be preferable in the future. Ryan Norton 19:28, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep There's no requirement that a source must be printed to be considered reliable. Coverage is varied enough to pass WP:GNG. -- Norvy (talk) 01:19, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Cosplay models? Seriously? Gamaliel (talk) 16:59, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• That's a weak reason. I don't especially care about cosplay models either, but just about anything can have an article as long as it meets the WP:GNG and doesn't violate WP:NOT. Sergecross73 msg me 13:52, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• I have nothing against cosplay models, so that hardly applies, I just don't feel like they meet notability requirements. Gamaliel (talk) 03:37, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Sorry, I guess its just hard to tell, considering you still haven't given an actual reason why... Sergecross73 msg me 13:08, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• To expand on what Sergecross73 is saying, I think it would be good to address the idea that it fails to meet notability requirements despite the fact pointed out above that the article is supported by multiple apparently reliable 3rd party sources. For many that's the definition of notability. -Thibbs (talk) 14:14, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Lots of people have passing mentions or small articles about them in third party sources. It doesn't automatically equal notability, especially when it comes to a BLP. Gamaliel (talk) 18:48, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I'm familiar enough with her without giving a damn about cosplay (almost to the point of disdain toward it) that I'd call her notable. Also a girl as cute as that should be everywhere. Only mostly joking. Also I don't really Wikipedia so I hope I did the formatting on this right the first time...(Edit: I did not.) 67.163.142.8 (talk) 23:01, 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. Courcelles 00:27, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Jpegx[edit]

Jpegx (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Jpegx is a computer application that appears to have little significance. The organisation that created it appears to be non existent now. There is minimal information about Jpegx in the article with no links of significance.

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

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

• Delete - fails WP:NSOFT and also WP:NOTCHANGELOG. Ansh666 22:40, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - I can find no significant coverage. It is mentioned quote a bit, like this. However, the coverage is not sigfnificant enough, nor braod enough to make up for the shallowness of the coverage. -- Whpq (talk) 15:34, 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. Courcelles 00:27, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Cerina da Graça[edit]

Cerina da Graça (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

There are zero secondary sources in the article to establish notability, I couldn't find any through a Google search, and the editor who created the article has not responded to my queries. Nightscream (talk) 03:15, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete nothing in google news archive for "Cerina da Graça." SalHamton (talk) 22:06, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per above. Nightscream (talk) 03:33, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Completing incomplete nom. — Train2104 (talk • contribs) 21:16, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

• Delete She failed to win a beauty pageant and she is an actress with no listed roles, she does not seem to even have a claim to notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:45, 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) Deadbeef 23:31, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ensignbus[edit]

Ensignbus (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

I can find no more than a passing reference to this company in independent secondary sources, otherwise only in-house sites and self-published fan sites. Fails WP:GNG. Charles (talk) 21:11, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. czar · · 21:23, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy Keep as does meet WP:GNG, Instead of nominating it why not WP:FIXIT? ..... -
  

→Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 22:46, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• The subject is not notable because you say it is. Significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources needs to be found and perhaps will be. This article was recreated from a redirect in 2007, without any independent sources, by an editor who is now banned. As far as I can see it never has had any reliable secondary sources since then although it has been changed by multiple editors. It is the responsibility of those who add material to provide references for it per WP:BURDEN. It is no good coming out with the kneejerk response "so fix it" when an editor finally decides enough is enough and puts it up for deletion.--Charles (talk) 12:36, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. I don't presently have access to any sources or time to find them, but given the notability of this company among enthusiasts I would be surprised if reliable sources don't exist. Worth noting is that they won "top independent operator of the year" for 2012 at the UK Bus Awards [2], which looks to be taken seriously by the major players in the industry although I don't know anything else about those awards. Thryduulf (talk) 01:39, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• (edit conflict) Comment  The first click I made to look for sources was to click on the "news" link above.  I found a 2005 article in Time magazine.  It is a short article, but the wp:notability shown by the article is indisputable.  I checked back on the Google news page and the preceding hit is from BBC News.  The snippet states, "Essex-based bus dealer Ensignbus is witnessing a surge of interest from prospective owners. The company has scores of Routemasters parked up at its site..."  These are not, in the words of the nomination, "passing references", in-house sites, or fan sites.  Unscintillating (talk) 01:51, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• I too checked out the news hits but found no articles which are actually about the company. They only mention the company in passing as they write about Routemaster sales or, more recently, energy efficient buses.--Charles (talk) 12:40, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per Unscintillating. Simply south...... eating shoes for just 7 years 12:02, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:33, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Looking through WP:GNG guidelines suggest that the article is notable, so shouldn't be deleted. It is also a part of London's transport history, so I beg to differ why this would want to be deleted just because one person wants it deleted. ^Tom... _{the magic...} ^TomatoTalk 07:18, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• "just because one person wants it deleted" - Least I'm not the only one to notice! -
  

→Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 07:28, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep  At the time of nomination, the article failed WP:V, but there are some references now, and notability has never been in question.  Unscintillating (talk) 23:07, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. LFaraone 03:44, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew Konopelsky[edit]

Andrew Konopelsky (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Footballer who fails WP:NFOOTBALL and WP:GNG - Oleola (talk) 21:03, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. czar · · 21:24, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. czar · · 21:24, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. czar · · 21:24, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. czar · · 21:25, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - The article technically meets WP:NSPORT, but the obvious failure of WP:GNG outweighs a single brief appearance in a fully pro match six years ago. Sir Sputnik (talk) 21:33, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - failure of WP:GNG outweighs the fact he passes WP:NFOOTBALL by the skin of his teeth. WP:COMMONSENSE and past consensus supports this. GiantSnowman 14:05, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Very weak delete - the article ever so slightly passes NFOOTBALL, but probably won't pass GNG. I found a few brief mentions of his career on Polish online sites, which I've added to the article, but I don't think it is enough to meet the GNG. Jogurney (talk) 17:03, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - While I agree with Sir Sputnik and GiantSnowman, I don't agree that this is an "obvious failure of GNG". Would you mind elaborating why this subject fails GNG? Mentoz86 (talk) 12:28, 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. --BDD (talk) 06:55, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

War on cars powered by gasoline engines conspiracy[edit]

War on cars powered by gasoline engines conspiracy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

A conspiracy theory which is just a WP:SOAPBOX piece. Essentially composed solely of WP:OR and is impossible to verify. I declined a speedy delete nomination as it doesn't fit any of the CSD criteria. Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 21:08, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - seems like someone trying to push anti-Obama views. The article is patently junk, with irrelevant anecdotes, and there is literally only one source that even remotely support the title. [3] looks like a very tabloid-esque piece, and I really don't think it qualifies as a RS. Nowhere is there anything talking about a conspiracy, in reality; even the above source doesn't. Being anti-petrol isn't the same thing as a conspiracy. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 21:14, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. czar · · 21:25, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Conspiracy theories-related deletion discussions. czar · · 21:25, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. czar · · 21:25, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. czar · · 21:25, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. This is POV-pushing junk that should barely be allowed to remain for the week this will take to go through. Ducknish (talk) 21:27, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. This is pure synthesis. Even the dubious source mentioned above by Lukeno94 won't help because it's not discussing the putative conspiracy theory, it's claiming that there is a conspiracy, making it primary even if it were reliable, which it almost certainly is not, as stated. Nuke it. — alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 22:05, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete soapbox, OR, synthesis, etc. Great example of what shouldn't be an article.--Bkwillwm (talk) 02:33, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - The phrase "Original Research" is often bandied about wrongly at WP — this is what it actually looks like. Original essay pushing a novel, fringe POV, sourced out to look pretty, but actually a creation from left field. Carrite (talk) 01:26, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Looks more like deep right field to me...— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 01:29, 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 per WP:SNOW despite the massive amounts of sockpuppetry and per author's request to delete all their articles. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 05:49, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

DL Teamor[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)).

DL Teamor (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

A lot of external links but which one is actually an in-depth, independent discussion of the woman? — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 21:06, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. czar · · 21:27, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. czar · · 21:28, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Where do the guidelines indicate that there has to be an article with lengthy discussion? RHaworth Wikipedia guidelines do not say that. Coraopolis412 (talk) 21:35, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

2)The person is a significant contributor to, a subject of, or used as an expert source by major news agencies or publications. 4)The person has created, or played a major role in co-creating, a significant or well-known work, or collective body of work, that has been the subject of an independent book or feature-length film, or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Coraopolis412 (talk • contribs) 21:44, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please tell me what you would like to see included on the page, RHaworth. I don't understand why this is troubling to you. There are many other resources that can be included, but I'd like to know what you deem necessary. Coraopolis412 (talk) 21:59, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• WP:BIO says "published secondary sources which are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject". Which of your refs fit this criterion? — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 22:05, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

RHaworth Fox2 News, Xlibris Publishing, Hour Detroit Magazine, Goodreads, CW50 Street Vibes, WDWO TV, Black Authors & Published Writers Directory 2013...these are all independent of each other and very reliable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Coraopolis412 (talk • contribs) 22:13, 4 May 2013 (UTC) Can you explain further? Coraopolis412 (talk) 22:17, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Also, RHaworth in reading some of the other Christian Fiction authors pages, I see some with less notoriety and achievements... Coraopolis412 (talk) 22:19, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• MyFoxDetroit does not even mention the woman's name. XLibris patently not independent. Hour-Detroit has a picture - no text at all. Need I go on? And please read WP:OSE. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 22:28, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

RHaworthThe entire report on Fox 2 is DL Teamor - - she is the one who is speaking during the whole interview and the name is on the screen. I understand about Xlibris, the whole gala was DL Teamor's for Calvary House, Yes, please go on... - - as far as OSE, it says, In consideration of precedent and consistency, though, identifying articles of the same nature that have been established and continue to exist on Wikipedia may provide extremely important insight... Would this not include the work for Veterans who otherwise have no voice? The Hour Detroit, Fox and CW50 reports directly address these issues.Coraopolis412 (talk) 22:44, 4 May 2013 (UTC) .Coraopolis412 (talk) 22:40, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. The subject might well be a very nice person but that doesn't convey notability. Coraopolis412, please see WP:OTHERSTUFF. "Other articles which don't meet standards are here so this one should remain" is no argument; it's just an argument to remove the other articles. A Harlem Love Song might come under this AfD as well. Tonywalton ^Talk 00:02, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete self-published author. References are either non-independed or are products of press releases. The only book which is even in WorldCat is Because our story will never end, which is in one library exactly. I prodded the articles on the two books. Personally, i think all three articles could also be deleted as G11, promotional, for that is their obvious intent. DGG ( talk ) 00:19, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Do Not Delete - - I have heard of this author through both her published works and as a talk show host on TCT. I also watch her on Ask the Pastor. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mvs530 (talk • contribs) Mvs530 (talk) 00:49, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Mvs530 is likely a sockpuppet of Coraopolis412. 69.181.253.230 (talk) 00:50, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, having some press is no reason for a Wikipedia article. Abductive (reasoning) 00:55, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Do Not Delete has shows on multiple network stations in the United States. Because they are not known worldwide is no cause for deletion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Claudiacandi (talk • contribs) 01:02, 5 May 2013 (UTC) — Claudiacandi (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Do Not Delete This lady is known throughout Michigan for her work with Veterans as well as her books and TV shows.BranBrooks (talk) 01:08, 5 May 2013 (UTC) — BranBrooks (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Do Not Delete She is on the news and radio frequently speaking about vet issues and is seen often performing, speaking or giving keynote addresses at graduations and other engagements. In the guidelines, this shows that "The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers".AdrianPVT (talk) 01:23, 5 May 2013 (UTC)— AdrianPVT (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Do Not Delete I am the target of this deletion campaign. I was made aware of this article earlier today and I am honored that my peers have chosen to recognize me in this way. I am definitely, "a nice lady" as some who don't know me above have indicated, but by no means was this the reason that they have written this article. There has been "Significant coverage" about me and I have been "the main topic of the source material" in more publications, journals and compilations than I could ever remember. They are certainly from "Reliable" sources as they are from "published works in all forms and media, and in any language." I see that news stories have been included on the page from FOX, TCT and CW50. I'm sure these would be called reliable in any media circle. All included "Sources" are secondary sources, and Multiple sources have been provided. I am certain that more could be added, however there would be more links than verbiage, and I'm sure that isn't the point of these articles. The guidelines say that the Sources are not required to be available online, and they are not required to be in English I will make these available to the article writer as soon as possible. The media sources that have been provided are "Independent of the subject" and I am in no way affiliated with those who interviewed me, wrote about me, etc. These are simply my peers who have an immense respect for my contributions. I can be contacted via my website with any questions or concerns.DLeniseTeamor (talk) 01:50, 5 May 2013 (UTC) — DLeniseTeamor (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Do Not Delete For those who have voted to delete, please tell me how many more sources you want included and I will include as many as you want.Coraopolis412 (talk) 02:07, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Certainly by the sources being put forth as the best ones, coverage is not being shown. The CW50 has about a two sentence mention of her by one of her colleagues; the piece is on the organization, not on her. The Fox piece shows her and has her talking, but that doesn't make her the subject - again, about two sentences on her... and that's in an interview about an auction by the person who is emceeing the auction, making it hard to see as independent. The piece that has a photo of her with her name in the caption, again, not significant coverage. --Nat Gertler (talk) 02:21, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - This does not seem to be a notable subject, despite the sources. An in-depth look at the sources shows that. Furthermore, the article is poorly written and lacks a true neutral point of view. Also, does anyone think we may have a sockpuppetry issue going on with the posts above that all say "do not delete"? Red Phoenix ^{build the future...remember the past...} 02:33, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I did a cleaning of the article to see if there was anything that could show notability. After all, an article might look bad but still contain RS or things that could point towards notability. I've cleaned out the worst of it, but the end result was pretty much what the other editors said: there is no notability here. Of the sources on the article, none were usable. Since we have so many new editors here, I'll give a rundown of why this is so:

Basically put, she doesn't pass notability guidelines. Helping out people who are less fortunate is unfortunately not something that gives notability. It'd be nice if we could say that it was, but it's not. It might seem unfair that someone who does nice things for other people and sacrifices their time gets no coverage while someone who is known for being rathouse crazy gets so much coverage that they merit their own article. The thing is, it's not up to Wikipedia to make up the difference for what is or isn't covered in the media and we cannot give every person an article, regardless of how deserving they might seem. If they don't have coverage, they can't get an article. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:02, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete for reasons very well stated by Tokyogirl79. I am also concerned about sockpuppetry, per comment by Red Phoenix. HillbillyGoat (talk) 05:36, 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 keep. (non-admin closure) czar · · 23:50, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Fred Diamond[edit]

Fred Diamond (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Although slightly noted in relation to the full proof of the modularity theorem where he was one of several who extended Andrew Wiles famous proof, I can't find any evidence that this is not just "a routine professor of a subject at a university". Even his profile page doesn't seem to hint at more. He researches in his field and has a research fellowship by the American Mathematical Society, but there just doesn't seem to be enough here to suggest he is a notable academic in his own right in the sense of WP:N and WP:BIO.

I've considered the spirit of WP:ACADEMIC. While the modularity theorem is a major theorem, I don't think Diamond has been notable because of his involvement in it. From several angles the same conclusions - the theorem was largely a completion/extension of Wiles' historic work in 1995 which was based on Wiles' approaches and completed within some months (so he wasn't the "resolver of a major issue in number theory" at that point), and to underline this, a number of other researchers also seem to have published or collaborated in the same work's completion (see Modularity theorem#History). A check of third party reliable sources shows similarly that they haven't provided significant coverage of him in the sense a bio-article subject is usually discussed. Beyond that there's almost nothing else to draw on. As the guideline observes:

"Many scientists, researchers, philosophers and other scholars ... are notably influential in the world of ideas without their biographies being the subject of secondary sources." (WP:ACADEMIC)

Eyeballs appreciated. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 19:45, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Google scholar shows six publications by Diamond with over 100 citations each, a high number for a low-citation field. I think this is enough to give him a clear pass of WP:PROF#C1, beyond his fame as one of the people who proved the full modularity theorem (which is by the way a very significant result, independent of its connection to Fermat). —David Eppstein (talk) 20:14, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. czar · · 21:29, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

But do we have any secondary sources covering him, or signs that he (as an individual) is seen as more than a routine academic, albeit one with highly cited papers? I'm looking for evidence of significant notice being taken by secondary sources in the context of a biographical article, not just our subjective assumptions about citation count. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 23:10, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Routine academic" and "Highly cited" are two different things. And routine academics don't get the AMS Centeniall Fellowship nor hold visiting positions at the IAS – although neither of those things is sufficient for notability by themselves, I think they add weight to the case. As for your other argument, that he may have had a significant impact as measured e.g. by citations while still failing to have enough secondary sources on which to base an article: that can happen sometimes, but I think it is not a problem here. Plenty of in-depth secondary sources cover his contributions (both the modularity theorem and the book), and I believe that sort of coverage to be a lot more important for academics than coverage of biographical trivia. For factual information like degree and appointment data we can use primary sources such as his cv, but the Notices announcement of his fellowship is secondary, nontrivial, and biographical. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:43, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Clear keep as per Eppstein. GS h-index of 17 is good for mathematicians, plus some very high cites. The nominator should study WP:Prof before making further nominations in this area. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:51, 4 May 2013 (UTC).[reply]
• Keep This one pretty clearly passes under WP:PROF C1, as David Eppstein has noted. Ray^Talk 02:10, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Per David Epstein. Mathematics is a field where 10 citations for a paper is a lot. Having several papers with over 100 citations and an H-index of 17 would be close to notable in a high-citation field like Neuroscience, in mathematics it is way beyond any reasonable threshold. --Randykitty (talk) 12:21, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I don't think h-index is even all that relevant here because his papers don't fit the typical curve, i.e. citations are "frontloaded" into a fairly small number of papers. WoS citation list is 233, 69, 60, 53,... so he's written a limited number of rather high impact papers – perfectly acceptable under WP:PROF c1. Agricola44 (talk) 15:26, 6 May 2013 (UTC).[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:30, 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 keep. (non-admin closure) Michaelzeng7 (talk) 00:56, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Caloocan City Business High School[edit]

Caloocan City Business High School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Highly promotional. I've looked in the history, and to remove the promo would take it back nearly a year. There's been a lot of COI editing. Anyone wanting to sort it, be my guest. Peridon (talk) 19:05, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. czar · · 19:12, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. czar · · 19:12, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep and improve the article through the normal editing process. Accumulation of promotional language does not call for deletion, it call for editing. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 21:22, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and improve. High schools are usually kept. Elementary schools are usually considered not notable. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:16, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No-one said it wasn't notable. High schools can be (and are) deleted for advertising - which has been going on here for a long time... Peridon (talk) 18:49, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES & WP:HIGHSCHOOL.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 00:53, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - High schools have always been considered notable. However, this is on condition that the article be rewritten with a more neutral tone. If not, it would be better to just start from scratch. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 10:11, 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. Courcelles 00:29, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ninja Warz[edit]

Ninja Warz (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

This was one of the first article I created, but looking back it seems non-notable. Gilderien Chat|List of good deeds 18:46, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. czar · · 19:12, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. czar · · 19:12, 4 May 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 · · 19:13, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment This can be speedy deleted per WP:CSD G7, but if it isn't I'd vote delete since it seems to fail WP:NVG. Ansh666 19:56, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete- Absolutely Non notable website.--Robustdsouza (talk) 20:01, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• — Robustdsouza (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 20:05, 4 May 2013 (UTC) (UTC). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gilderien (talk • contribs) [reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. --BDD (talk) 06:57, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Untitled fifth studio album (Jonas Brothers Album)[edit]

Untitled fifth studio album (Jonas Brothers Album) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

WP:CRYSTAL,WP:NALBUMS and WP:HAMMER apply. In order to avoid rumour-mongering, we normally don't create articles until there's a confirmed track list, title, and release date. This has none of the three, and contains such vague nonsense as "TBA, the album's second single, is according to Joe Jonas possibly set to be released before they hit the road again in July 2013." —Kww(talk) 18:38, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. czar · · 18:44, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - per WP:HAMMER, which is pretty much everything KWW just said... Sergecross73 msg me 19:51, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete- reason as above --Robustdsouza (talk) 20:04, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Hammertime! Ansh666 21:54, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete All of the cites are in passing references dealing with promotion of Joe's Kevin's reality show, not the album itself or just time-filling performances. We don't even have an actual label for the record. All the sources are either fansites or the brother's Twitter accounts, or spread out things like TVBTN and outright press releases. Nothing really here suggesting an album is coming out via reliable sources. Nate • (chatter) 22:48, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete This article is everything WP:HAMMER warns about.LM2000 (talk) 04:20, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I also have a hard time understanding the unusual choice of title for the article. There are other articles named "Untitled fifth studio album"? Well, by the guidelines, there shouldn't be. LazyBastardGuy 04:12, 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 Allama Iqbal Medical College#Publications. J04n(talk page) 19:54, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Shaheen Annual Youth Magazine[edit]

Shaheen Annual Youth Magazine (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Magazine appears to be non-notable, no sources found. Revolution1221 ^{(talk · email · contributions)} 17:11, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. czar · · 17:20, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. czar · · 17:20, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Allama Iqbal Medical College#Publications. -- Whpq (talk) 15:37, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:28, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:29, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong delete, shouldn't've even gone through this process, should've been deleted a week ago. I've redirected.--Launchballer 09:22, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - It's inappropriate to redirect while the AFD is still open. Wait for the process to complete. -- Whpq (talk) 09:53, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Despite it clearly being unencyclopedic and containing no useful content whatsoever?--Launchballer 11:02, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • See WP:EDITATAFD. Turning it into a redirect short-circuits the deletion process. That this clearly does not merit a standalone article means that there likley won't be a relist, and the article will get deleted/redirected based on consensus. -- Whpq (talk) 11:38, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • If you say so, but this shouldn't've come here in the first place.--Launchballer 11:56, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
          • Given that the nominator thought it should be deleted, I think it should be redirected, and your official ! vote is for deletion, it appears a discussion is actually is needed. If not here, then where do you think this should have been taken? -- Whpq (talk) 12:57, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
            • Certainly not here. This is an unquestionable delete (to have to wait a week to remove 13 unformatted words is just WP:BOLLOCKS in my opinion). A talk page would've been better.--Launchballer 09:43, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - no question.Deb (talk) 09:25, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • What is your reasoning for deletion instead of redirecting? -- Whpq (talk) 10:04, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • It is an inappropriate page. Deb (talk) 11:52, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • But that doesn't explain why you don't want it redirected. -- Whpq (talk) 11:55, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • The magazine is of far too local interest to warrant inclusion; it's only circulated amongst students! Ask me again when they issue it outside the campus.--Launchballer 12:35, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
          • The reason you give explains why a standalone article is not justified, but it does not address why we should not have a redirect, especially as some information about the magazine is contained at the Allama Iqbal Medical College article. -- Whpq (talk) 12:58, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
            • It's pointless - no-one's going to be looking for it. It isn't encyclopedic or notable.--Launchballer 13:02, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
              • This is a page for discussing whether an article should be deleted, and those who are in favour of deletion are not on trial here. Deb (talk) 15:01, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
                • You are not "on trial here". Asking for a reason for deletion instead of redirection is a perfectly valid question to ask in this discussion. The response that this is not encyclopedic or notable addresses why a standalone article is not needed. And so far, nobody is advocating keeping the article. No-one's going to look for it presupposes what people might be interested in searching for. We do have material at the suggested redirect target and we normally redirect in those cases. -- Whpq (talk) 16:50, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
                  • I think this is one thing that we can presuppose. Who is going to be interested in it besides its writers and its stakeholders (other students, parents, teachers)? No-one! Drop the stick.--Launchballer 17:06, 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. Courcelles 00:29, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Kelly Greyson[edit]

Kelly Greyson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Non-notable actor lacking GHITS and GNEWS of substance. The article contains a large number of references, but they are generally not related to the individual. Fails WP:N and WP:TOOSOON reddogsix (talk) 16:53, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. czar · · 17:21, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete- Googling a bit i found quite few mentions in the form of various film festivals attendants but no media coverage or magazine coverage to establish her notability.--Robustdsouza (talk) 20:11, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:TOOSOON, basically just one significant role so far. Cavarrone (talk) 19:58, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - what appears to be a spam article about yet another [[:WP:UPANDCOMING|"up-and-coming" performer. --Orange Mike | Talk 00:14, 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 delete housekeeping non-admin closure: A7 (not listed in log) czar · · 17:53, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Owen Thomas (boxer)[edit]

Owen Thomas (boxer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

The article is probably a sandbox experiment by a new editor. The article is not suitable for Wikipedia; no information and the person in question on which the article is based is not noteworthy. Ahmer Jamil Khan (talk) 16:19, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete Tagged it. Peridon (talk) 16:45, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. czar · · 16:48, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. czar · · 16:48, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete A7: makes no effort to assert notability. Also no hits for a living boxer by this name. czar · · 16:56, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete per A7: Clear cut case for speedy deletion. Ahmer Jamil Khan, you do know about speedy deletion, right? If not, you should read Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion, because this should have been tagged for speedy deletion, and no AFD discussion should have been created. Lugia2453 (talk) 17:06, 4 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. postdlf (talk) 16:00, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

2012 Pacific Tropical Cyclones Track[edit]

2012 Pacific Tropical Cyclones Track (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Per WP:PLOT, WP is not the JTWC/JAMA, it is not a database. Could be deleted or converted to a timeline. This page is not even complete and nobody bothered to put a hurricane tag on. YE ^{Pacific Hurricane} 15:39, 4 May 2013 (UTC) YE ^{Pacific Hurricane} 15:39, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per User:Yellow Evan. Auree ^★★ 15:45, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per User:Yellow Evan. I should also mention the very poor wording (i.e. "This is like the 2012 Pacific Typhoon Season, but this focuses heavily on the storm's characteristics over time. This tells the current condition of the storm in a given time or date in its whole existence. Thus, this does not include the damages and effects of the storm.") in the lede and the need for updating.--12george1 (talk) 15:49, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per others. TropicalAnalystwx13 (talk) 15:52, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. czar · · 16:50, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. czar · · 16:51, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete with fairly strong prejudice. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 18:21, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as I dont think we should have a timeline for this season or any season, however before this is snow closed id like to see some thoughts from people outside the project in case we are over reacting.Jason Rees (talk) 17:58, 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. Courcelles 00:30, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Đinh Hoàng Max[edit]

Đinh Hoàng Max (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Contested PROD. Concern was Article about a footballer who fails WP:GNG and who has not played in a fully pro league. PROD was contested by an IP without providing a reason. Sir Sputnik (talk) 15:37, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 15:38, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. czar · · 16:51, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. czar · · 16:51, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Vietnam-related deletion discussions. czar · · 16:51, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. GiantSnowman 14:04, 5 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) 12:21, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - not notable enough due to not having played at a high enough level in terms of guidelines mentioned above, lack of WP:SIGCOV as well. C679 07:40, 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. Courcelles 00:30, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wind Speed in Bangladesh last 42 Years[edit]

Wind Speed in Bangladesh last 42 Years (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Simply not notable. Unsourced and fails our policies. Mediran (t • c) 14:53, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• I don't think we have articles on wind speeds in other countries, so this one can be safely deleted. --JB Adder | Talk 14:58, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - If that's not a copyvio, I will smoke an Oliva V salomon. Ditto even if it ain't a copyvio, but I will bet that it is. Unsourced. Even if it were sourced, it is not an encyclopedic topic. Why 42 years? There might be an article to be had List of typhoons since 1900 to strike Bangladesh or something like that, given concrete inclusion parameters and proper sourcing, but this ain't it. Carrite (talk) 15:24, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Agree with Carrite.Truth or consequences-2 (talk) 17:04, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. czar · · 16:52, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. czar · · 16:52, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete We actually have lots of articles like this and this one is a cruder version of List of Bangladesh tropical cyclones. But, as the title doesn't seem especially appropriate, I can't see much point in keeping any of it. Warden (talk) 17:05, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Warden. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 18:35, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above, even if it has the answer to life, the universe, and everything in its title. (Well, seriously, the data probably exists elsewhere on here, like on the list Warden pointed out (I should really look before I say stuff like that... Ansh666 21:56, 4 May 2013 (UTC)), and there's no real reason to keep a random unencyclopedic list of it anyways.) Ansh666 20:05, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete very poorly organized article, and wind speed should be in Climate portion of Bangladesh or maybe Climate of Bangladesh. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:44, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per nom. Faizan -Let's talk! 13:51, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I assume the editor chose 42 because the state of Bangladesh came only in 1971. But the title seems very odd to me. Solomon7968 (talk) 18:32, 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, no notability of this theory has been demonstrated.--Ymblanter (talk) 07:36, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Critical repetition frequency[edit]

Critical repetition frequency (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

The article on Critical repetition frequency is based on the German article on "Kritische Wiederholungshäufigkeit", which was deleted in June 2010, see http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:L%C3%B6schkandidaten/1._Juni_2010#Kritische_Wiederholungsh.C3.A4ufigkeit_.28erl..2C_gel.C3.B6scht.29 since this is a phony theory without any scientific content, see discussion there and discussion page of this article here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Critical_repetition_frequency

The authors of this article tried to establish a phony theory (using some pseudo-math) in order to push their views on the question, whether poker should be regarded as a game of skill. However, they even succeeded to place their theories at the institute of common law (!) of the university of Hamburg. Thereafter they tried to misuse Wikipedia as a reference.

After this theory was rejected (it is a question of pure mathematics, and from the mathemaical point of view it's pure nonsense) the article was deleted from the German Wikipedia and things remained silent. By chance I found this article in the English Wikipedia - it is just a translation from the German one - and I think, it should be deleted, too.

Wikipedia should not offer a platform for anybody to establish his one silly theories.

When deleting this article, the file http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Importance_Skill_Chance.JPG should be deleted, too. Roland Scheicher (talk) 13:16, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Roland Scheicher (talk) 13:23, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment: The world is full of silly theories, if not outright fraudalent ones. What makes a possibly silly/fake theory notable, and therefore within Wikipedia's scope, is not if it is true or not but its social impact, e.g. Moon landing conspiracy theories, MMR vaccine controversy. The CRF theory appears to have been created as a lobbying tool by the online gambling industry in order to present poker as a game of skill and therefore meriting a more lenient regulatary approach than games reliant on pure chance. The notability of this theory must therefore not rest upon its peer reviewed scientific/mathematical credentials-but, if any, its use as a lobbying tool and its influence on legislation and regulation.--KTo288 (talk) 14:14, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. czar · · 14:51, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. czar · · 14:51, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. I read KTo288's comment (objection?) as an invitation to write an article about the topic as fallacy or fraud, but this is not it, nor is this a sound place to start towards it.Truth or consequences-2 (talk) 17:08, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete without prejudice. If it can be rewritten to indicate the applicability of the theory to gambling legislation, it can be reintroduced. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:13, 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 no consensus. Whereas many useful ideas have surfaced out in this discussion, unfortunately, not a single one created consensus. Let us try again in a while.--Ymblanter (talk) 07:45, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Central station[edit]

Central station (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

This article says very little beyond saying that "'Central' is a common element in big city train station names" and then providing a list of stations that are, by someone's definition, "central". But for instance the German name being used as a criterion is Hauptbahnhof, as referenced in Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2013 May 3#Category:Hauptbahnhof, not Zentralbahnhof; in the US "Central" stations tend to be those built by "central" railroads: the best known example, Grand Central Station in NYC, is so named because it was built by the New York Central Railroad, not for its location or importance. Thus I see no real common concept addressed by this article, other than a subjective notion of mainness or centrality. Mangoe (talk) 13:14, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, or at least convert to a disambiguation page listing all stations named "central". - filelakeshoe (t / c) 13:18, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. czar · · 14:51, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. czar · · 14:51, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. About as useful as a bing search, a serious case of Synthesis--Robert EA Harvey (talk) 15:43, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Union station with a possible separate chapter, with the additional option of a dab page or list. For the record, the current Union Station article should have the "List of Union Stations" name restored. -------User:DanTD (talk) 15:55, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirecting it there would be a bad idea as Union seems only to be an American thing whilst Central is worldwide. For example, in the UK and France there are no stations that have Union in the name. Simply south...... eating shoes for just 7 years 20:52, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• (edit conflict) Delete per nom, No information whatsoever.... just Lists of train stations.... Seems a pointless article to me........ →Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 15:58, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and improve. The subject is valid and the article just needs sorting out, not deleting. The primary station of a city is frequently called the "Central Station" and, in some countries, it is actually formally defined as such. It has nothing to do with Union stations. --Bermicourt (talk) 19:34, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody needs an article to understand that there is often a single main/central station in a city of sufficient size; it's actually more remarkable that Paris and London do not have a single primary station, and that many smallish American cities are served by two or more stations. The article spends some time (not all that much) in an attempt to explain the obvious, but as the associated category is not well-defined, so the list's membership ends up being based on the arbitrary criterion of picking a set of words to be used as synonyms for "central" and including any station that uses one of those words. Mangoe (talk) 11:51, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Those are strong arguments to improve the existing article; thank you for highlighting specific areas that need attention. --Bermicourt (talk) 13:03, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Central Station (disambiguation), which has a better list of central train stations anyways. Ansh666 20:02, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Er, take another look. The dab page list is poorly organized, has far fewer entries and at least 2 entries that shouldn't be in the list. Truth is, the central station article got hacked and slashed following a spurious argument over the translation of Hauptbahnhof and has not recovered since. I have started some rework to make it more encyclopaedic, but don't currently have access to my offline sources. --Bermicourt (talk) 20:26, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Awkward...I got the two mixed up. Too many central stations! I think a merging of the two in some form, with one being a list and the other detailing the "concept" more, would be better. So I guess I should !vote keep for now? Ansh666 20:40, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Re that comment and your random moving of Praha hl.n. to Prague Central Station (despite knowing that article has already had 2 RMs and the correct action is to nominate it for a third), the spurious argument is the one that "central station" means "main station" everywhere in the world. Each country in the world has different naming conventions for railway stations and in Czech Republic there are many cities (like Ostrava and, in the past, Prague) which have a "main station" (hlavní nádraží) and a "central" (střed). A uniform naming convention of calling every big station around the world "Foo Central Station" is original research, and this article's purpose just seems to be to push that. - filelakeshoe (t / c) 08:15, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • I am surprised that you, as an admin, are using personal criticism ("random move" - it wasn't; and "despite knowing that article has already had 2 RMs" - no, I didn't actually) and abusing your admin rights by reverting article moves, something the rest of us can't do. That aside, easy research shows that "Foo Central Station" is a common English translation, not least for "Prague Central Station" - just check out google (73,000 hits) and google books (88) (yes I know google needs treating with caution, but 73,000 tells a story), whilst the average English reader of Wikipedia will have some difficulty with Praha hl.n. or Praha hlavní nádraží. All of which is tangentially related to this article, which is not about pushing a convention - that's a straw man argument. The article needs improving, not wiping out. --Bermicourt (talk) 12:50, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • BOLD moves are only supposed to be done when the case is uncontroversial, so not something which has had 2 no consensus RMs (both of which you !voted in). As for this article, could you tell us what you think the point of it is? To list every major station of every city in the world, or to list every station named "Central"? (centraal, centrale, střed etc.) If it's the former then there are plenty of stations named "Central" in the UK which are not, by that definition, "Central Stations", and plenty of places around the world where there's a "main station" and another station called "central", and if it's the latter then that amounts to a list of trivia. - filelakeshoe (t / c) 14:05, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'M SO CONFUSED NOW T__T okay to closing admin I officially don't exist in this one. Ansh666 08:51, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Split page - I think there could be useful information for a Central station concept article. However, trying to list every single central station in the world will be a problem. In fact there are many stations that could be considred central stations are they are located in the centre. Simply south...... eating shoes for just 7 years 20:52, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• keep I don't know why we wouldn't list every single central station. We have much bigger lists. But this one could be a list of "notable" central stations, e.g. ones for which Wikipedia has an article. I think this is quite reasonable and fits within the bounds of notability esp for a list-type article.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 03:26, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • All major railway stations in cities would be notable, so it would be, once all articles exist, a list of every single "central station". - filelakeshoe (t / c) 14:05, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and partially replace with Central station (disambiguation). Half of this is just a list of "Central Station"s in the world. Only the main idea is relevant. --Epicgenius^{(talk to me • see my contributions)} 20:35, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. As a variation on some of the suggestions above, the main article could discuss the usage of the term around the world, listing only notable and relevant examples in each country. So where a country ("Foo") has more than a handful of such stations, its section would have a link to a separate "List of central stations in Foo". That would certainly be neater and more encyclopaedic. --Bermicourt (talk) 20:47, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. This article should really just be "Hauptbahnhof" and explain the conventional usage of this term in the German speaking world. It appears to have suffered from translation into English followed by corruption by attempts to add further examples from other networks. Railwayfan2005 (talk) 22:56, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. I think deciding what to do with this Central station page is connected with the wider question of how to treat the proper names of railway stations. It is unclear to me what purpose the Central station page currently serves, other than being used as an attempt to push "Central station" as a new English-language term meaning something like the main station in a city, whether or not it is actually called that outside Wikipedia or whether it is actually central; and for certain stations in the benighted lands on the wrong side of Dover the name which Wikipedia should use instead of the WP:COMMONNAME found in WP:ENGLISH-language reliable WP:SOURCES. Take the opening phrase "In many countries, a central station is generally the primary railway station in a large town or city", which gives no source, and doesn't reflect UK or Irish or US or French or German practice (whereabouts is it true?). Or look at the hoops someone is jumping though to try to define "Hauptbahnhof" as meaning Central station (perhaps Wikipedians have never been to Karslruhe or Vienna? And why aren't we renaming anything else with a German name, only the Hauptbahnhofs - why not a Tempelhof as well?) with the circular arguments between the station articles which have been renamed and this one. Meanwhile, other people are using this article to point out that such an agenda does not actually reflect the non-Wikipedia real world as it stands. A "list of stations named Central" is fundamentally incompatible with a "list of the main stations in various places" (see Brussels, Liverpool, Exeter, Prague etc, not to mention the Paris, London, Moscow etc question). This page has become part of the same debate.

(For the record, personally I'd trust DB, SNCB, CD, Thomas Cook, Modern Railways, Today's Railways, the BBC, CNN and the Grauniad more than I'd trust unsourced claims in Wikipedia, and the terminology they use is good enough for me!) Wheeltapper (talk) 23:19, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep WP:SIA (but the title should probably be "Central Station"). The stations not just called "Central Station" could be removed from the disambiguation page. Peter James (talk) 17:12, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete or completely overhaul to make it a set index article restricted to stations literally called "central station" in English or in the local language. It's quite clear from the opening paragraph that we don't know what this article is about. It basically says "a central station is at the center of the city or maybe not and may be called something else but we're still going to consider that it's a central station if we estimate that it's roughly equivalent and for good measure we'll also include stations called "central station" for unrelated reasons." Including the Hauptbahnhofs seems dubious: declaring that the correct translation of "Hauptbahnof" is "central station", rather than "main station" is somewhat arbitrary and in many contexts, English sources don't even translate Hauptbahnhof. In particular, if you're buying train tickets, in Belgium, France, Italy and other neighboring countries, the stations will be listed as XYZ Hauptbahnhof or XYZ Hbf. Pichpich (talk) 13:29, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The haupt prefix literally means "head" but should be taken in the figurative sense of "main" or "primary". It doesn't imply centrality of location. It should also be recalled that a "head station" is a terminus station, that is, one to which the tracks come and stop, as opposed the other other pattern of having platforms on either side of through trackage. I doubt that this sense is meant but the point here is that the concept this article is trying to over is vague and to a large degree subjective and arbitrary. Mangoe (talk) 14:03, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't haupt in this context translate to main, rather than head? A terminus is called a kopfbahnhof ('head station') in German. Kopf is also the word used for the part of the body attached to the neck. English-language announcements, timetables and passenger information of course use Hauptbahnhof, as does the media: even the Daily Mail, so famed for its tolerant and broadminded attitude to things foreign, is willing to talk about "the Hauptbahnhof, Berlin's main train station".[16] Wheeltapper (talk) 14:57, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I guess that the (dubious) rationale for translating Hauptbahnhof as "central station" is that when English sources translate the German word, "central station" seems to be the most common translation with "main station" a close second if one trusts my very unreliable research through Google. I think Dortmund Central Station should be moved to Dortmund Hauptbahnhof because it's the most recognizable name but even if one disagrees with that idea, it should be recognized that including the Hauptbahnhofs as central stations is only a product of our translation. Pichpich (talk) 16:02, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The impression I've got from previous debates on this matter is that the (dubious) rationale is that Central is what assorted stations might have been called were the natives to speak (an unspecified version of) English rather than speaking some foreign lingo. Which is completely unverifiable. I see the latest Today's Railways has an article called "Wien Hauptbahnhof delayed". Wheeltapper (talk) 18:00, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Today's Railways has a policy of never translating names into English, even when well known terms exist in English. Wikipedia's policy is different.--Grahame (talk) 02:15, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I thought Wikipedia's policy was in large part to follow the lead of reliable sources on the subject such as Today's Railways. Pichpich (talk) 02:43, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

So did I, based on WP:COMMONNAME: "determined by its prevalence in reliable English-language sources". And the The Guardian: at a building site near the Hauptbahnhof, CNN: near the Hauptbahnhof, Deutsche Welle: north of the Berlin Hauptbahnhof, and China Daily: Berlin's main Hauptbahnhof Railway Station also used Hauptbahnhof in recent news stories. Aside from stations, see also the Wikipedia articles on the Reichstag building (Imperial Parliament or Houses of Parliament (Germany)?), Oktoberfest (September festival? Great German Beer Festival?), Arc de Triomphe (Triumphal arch? Wellington Arch (Paris)?), and TGV (HST? InterCity 186?), all of which follow sources rather than try to devise an "English" name.

I see no evidence that Today's Railways is a reliable source on English naming conventions. It always calls Cologne "Köln", which is not normal English practice.--Grahame (talk) 01:43, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. It has a legitimate basis as an article.--Grahame (talk) 02:15, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • That doesn't say much... Do you think the article should list every station with a foreign name that a Wikipedia editor deems sufficiently close in spirit to "central station"? Can you reconcile this with including stations who are called "Central" by accident? If not, what exactly is that legitimate basis you mention? Pichpich (talk) 02:40, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that it would be more legitimate if it was called Hauptbahnhof, which has a defined meaning.--Grahame (talk) 02:45, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm... Then I don't really see where we disagree. Clearly we can't rename this article Hauptbahnhof since the bulk of its content is stations in non-German speaking countries. If you're saying that the article should be split into two (or more) set index articles, then I'd support this happily but your "keep" is at the very least ambiguous. Pichpich (talk) 03:00, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I support renaming it as Hauptbahnhof, and keeping the relevant content. I agree that the content of the article for non-German speaking countries does not appear to have a coherent rationale.--Grahame (talk) 03:19, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe I'm being stupid but I still don't see what you mean. If we rename this article to Hauptbahnhof then the only relevant content in the current article will be the section on Germany (although sections on Switzerland and Austria could be added). If your preferred option is "remove 90% of the content and move what's left to a new name", then I like that option but how is it different from "delete"? Pichpich (talk) 03:54, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It is different if we end up with a short article on the concept Hauptbahnhof (which is all that it deserves).--Grahame (talk) 08:15, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• further commentary on the German I see from the German Wikipedia that our notion of a "head station" (that is, one without through trackage) translates very literally to kopfbahnhof. But I also find that DB has a set of seven station categories, with the hauptbahnhöfe (mostly) sharing Category 1 with various other major stations (e.g. Berlin has something like six). This seems a more notable grouping. Mangoe (talk) 03:58, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hauptbahnhof has nothing to do with a "head station" (kopfbahnhof), it just means the most important station in a city/municipality. The German's generally prefix the municipal name to their stations so the Hauptbahnhof is the one that has no prefix. Bad Dürkheim station is a kopfbahnhof, but not a Hauptbahnhof. Hauptbahnhofs range down to category 6 (Gevelsberg Central Station.--Grahame (talk) 08:03, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Is "head station" an English term? The (British) English equivalent of kopfbahnhof is "terminus". Wheeltapper (talk) 08:10, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I would have thought that "terminus" was the normal English for kopfbahnhof.--Grahame (talk) 08:15, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, there seems to be some sort of rule that Brit and US terminology have to be different, but in any case the German word refers to a station where the tracks come into the building and stop, as opposed to the sort where they pass through the platforms and keep going. And I welcome Grahame's correction. At any rate all of these categorizations are tending to bunch up into "shared name" groups, whether the shared element is "central", "union", or "haupt". That to my mind puts the kibosh on the categorizations, but it also seems to me that the name issue is better served by some clean up in train station which among other things would address this issue of naming all in one place. Mangoe (talk) 10:20, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Hauptbahnhof" literally means "head railway yard". That's "head" as in "main", "chief" or "principal". It says nothing about whether the station is centrally situated. By contrast, "Central Station" is ambiguous: the word "central" could mean "main", "chief" or "principal", but might also mean either "centrally situated" or "this station belongs (or once belonged) to a railway company which had the word 'central' in its name". Neither of the terms "Hauptbahnhof" nor "Central Station" have any information about whether the tracks are necessarily dead-end or not. --Redrose64 (talk) 11:50, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Literal translation doesn't always help. A Hauptmann in the Army is a "captain"; it's literal meaning of "chief man" doesn't really help. What is essential in translation is to understand how the foreign word is applied in reality and then identify the nearest equivalent term in English. A Hauptbahnhof is (usually) the primary station in a city or large town; in some cases its original significance has been lost due to changes in transport demand over decades. In English, we do not use the term "head station" and very few examples are called "Main Station". By contrast "Central Station" is far more common and is the nearest equivalent in terms of usage: usually named because it was originally the primary station in a city or town that had more than one station, but again in some cases it has lost than significance but retained the name. Go back in history and you will find that the German word used to be Zentralbahnhof! But this article is not just about German usage, but about the many countries that also use the term "central station" or equivalent in very much the same way. Yes, there are differences; the value of an article like this is that it can highlight and explain all that, linking, where necessary, to individual country articles. Bermicourt (talk) 10:30, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Is there any evidence that stations called Central were "usually named because it was originally the primary station"? That isn't true of the UK, nor it would seem the USA or Australia, so where is it true? Can we find some hard examples of, say, New Street or Paragon or Waverley being called (rather than described as) "Central station"? Or examples of main stations which are not physically central being called Central while a minor but central station is called something else? I note that Hauptmann has its own page under the German name (which says that both the English and German words derive from "head", rather than "chief") it isn't a redirect to Captain (armed forces) or translated to Captain (German). It is also unclear why we actually need to identify equivalent terms to proper names in the first place - especially if the result is confusing and ambiguous (is Central station the main one or the central one?) and misleading (Karlsruhe Central station?) Wheeltapper (talk) 11:24, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is all Tosh. As someone pointed out above Grand central in New york got the appellation from the railway company name, not it's location in NY. Lincoln Central was nearer to the historic town than St Marks, and was called that as a differentiator. Gainsborough Central is an absolute dump compared to Gainsborough Lea Road, and was called Central because the LNER got it from the Great Central - it wasn't called Central till 1923. Liverpool Lime Street was always important than Liverpool Central, and right next to the town hall and the Astoria. Liverpool Central seems to have been named by the CLC because the station at the other end of the line was Manchester Central. There is no commonality or underlying 'message'. You might as well have a list of all stations called ...High Level or ...Street.

As for trying to make a link with Hauptbahnhof, I personally think that is just wrong. The name of Berlin Hauptbahnhof is Berlin Hauptbahnhof not Berlin Central. But I am on a loosing battle here, even www.raileurope.com and www.berlin.de assume that the english for Hauptbahnhof is Central Station. Belgrade Station is Belgrade Central Station now. The principle station in Brisbane is Central railway station.

I guess that what we can say is that in many cases the principle station in a City may be called X Central Station when expressed in English. (not, you notice, X Central). But in the UK and some other English-speaking countries this convention does not exist in the same way.

I'm not sure that is a basis for an article, though. It is just a statement with no content.--Robert EA Harvey (talk) 13:48, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Another example of where "Central" is ambiguous is Acton, an area of west London. There are multiple stations for the area but Acton Town tube station, Ealing Common tube station and Acton Central railway station are all equidistance from the centre of Acton. Simply south...... eating shoes for just 7 years

And not all Hauptbahnhof are very Haupt - Hauptbahnhof Sedelsberg--Robert EA Harvey (talk) 14:40, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

All of which goes to show that it is worth having the article, not least to explain all these different nuances, both in English, and other languages. If there were one simple dictionary definition, then it would make sense to leave it to Wiktionary, but there isn't, there is a wealth of material and host of different examples, complete with great images, for an article! What it needs is improving to address some of the concerns above. Let's give that a try before giving up! Bermicourt (talk) 15:42, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What it means is that the main train station article needs to explain this complex of somewhat related words. Mangoe (talk) 16:36, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It seems that much of the confusion is the result of attempts to use this article to try to establish the phrase "Central station" as having the meaning "the main station" within Wikipedia, which it does not have anywhere else. This page is then being used to argue that some stations which are not called "Central station" should be renamed as Central station within Wikipedia, while the renamed station articles are being used to justify this page. These problems would solve themselves if we just stuck to following sources and using the names of the stations which everyone else does; no-one seems to want to include Roma Termini on this list, because (so far!) no-one wants to rename its article to Rome Central station. What we really need is a clear policy on whether the normal WP:UE and wp:commonname apply to stations. If they do, then we don't invent new names for stations, and this page becomes "list of stations with the word Central in their name". If the stations do need Wikipedia rather than real-world names, then this page can become "list of stations which a Wikipedia policy which we specify here says should be renamed Central, but without those stations named by railways which forgot to check Wikipedia before naming their station". Wheeltapper (talk) 18:55, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. If "central station" meant simply "a station that is central", as the nominator assumes, then of course there would be no reason for an article of this type. But in fact "central station" is the common name for a type of station, as is evident from this ngram. This usage derives from the fact that, for whatever reason, the principle station of certain cities was named in the form "Foo Central Station." But the usage is now part of the English language, independent of the formal name of any particular station. The drive to delete this article appears to stem from opposition to the practice of translating station names. Translation is not original research! Let's not lose sight of the forest for the trees: Our purpose is to write reference material that English-speakers can read. Collins German-English Dictionary defines hauptbahnhof as "main or central station”. I did not make the translation up, and I don't appreciate the repeated accusations to this effect. Here is Spiegel Online: “Travelers at Berlin's central station faced disruptions after a series of petrol bombs were discovered along railway lines in the German capital last week.” Here we see the phrase "central station" used to refer to a type of station, a type that is understood to include the main railway station in Berlin. Deutsche Welle has a full-length English-language article on the Berlin station which refers to it as a "central station" and as a "central railway station" several times, but not once as a "hauptbahhof." I ask those who oppose translation this question: Should the main station in Beijing be called "北京火车站" or Běijīng huǒchēzhàn? Kauffner (talk) 04:19, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note that while Deutsche Welle might describe Hauptbahnof as being Berlin's central station, it says it is called Hauptbahnof: World War II bomb interrupts Berlin trains "a track of land north of the Berlin Hauptbahnhof". As does The Guardian: "the Hauptbahnhof". There is no evidence that "central" is being used in anything other than its everyday English sense. To prove central means main station, we would need to find examples of, say, Gare d'Avignon TGV being called "Avignon Central station" or Gare de Champagne-Ardenne TGV being called "Rheims Central station". I note that none of the Beijing stations have been designated "Beijing Central" by Wikipedia (until someone reads this and does so!). I ask those who oppose unambiguous and easy to understand common names this question: should Birmingham New Street railway station be called Birmingham Central, or at least "Birmingham's central station"? Wheeltapper (talk) 12:20, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Web site of the city of Berlin gives the station's name as "Berlin Central Station." I assume the site uses this form because the tourist office thinks it is the one that potential tourists will understand most easily. They have many years of experience with this issue and they may even have researched it. In it's original and literal meaning, the "central station" was the station that was most centrally located among a city's several stations -- nothing to do the city center. Kauffner (talk) 14:26, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Assume", "may". Are you suggesting that Deutsche Bahn (who think Berlin Central is a hotel), Eurostar and SNCB have zero experience of the travel market, and messrs Thomas Cook, Lonely Planet and Rough Guide have never done any research into foreign parts? Did the stations in Berlin all move around when Ostbahnhof's name changed? Our of interest, what do you think the airport should be called? Someone who is confused by a station in Berlin having a kraut name is surely going to have real problems with those funny little dots in Berlin Schönefeld Airport! Wheeltapper (talk) 16:32, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Meanwhile in other cities the principle stations of were called Victoria, or Union, or Hauptbahnhof, or Paragon, while non-principle stations were called Central.

• Comment - I would be happier with this article at main station if it is attempting to be an article on main stations, "central station" is a geographical/locational not functional title in English. As far as use of this article as a WP:POINTY lever to justify not following English sources. That is better dealt with in a RM. In view of Wheeltapper's comments, I have just opened one to restore undiscussed move from Talk:Leipzig Central Station → Leipzig Hauptbahnhof. In ictu oculi (talk) 04:47, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Hi IIO. I don't think the article is about main stations in that sense, but about the use of the name "Foo Central Station" or "Foo Central railway station" and its equivalents in other countries. This naming convention is common in English and elsewhere and, it seems to me, that there is a logic behind the naming, even if, in some cases that logic no longer applies to individual cases, e.g. where a station has lost its significance. Of course, as various editors have pointed out, the usage is not identical between countries, but in Europe at least, it is very often the primary station in their city and originally named to disambiguate it from another, lesser, station in the same city. US usage is, of course, different and also needs to be clearly articulated. The history, distribution and usage of these terms, together with lists of the national examples, seems a noteworthy enough subject. What we need is to put better structure and more sources around the article, not least to take account of the valid points made by various editors about the origin and usage of the name in different countries.

A separate issue is how we translate station names in other countries. Normally it's easy: "Foo railway station" where "Foo" is the proper name, excluding the foreign word for station. In addition, few seem opposed to the translation of "Foo Central Station" or "Foo Central railway station" where the foreign name literally means "central station". There is an issue where it literally means "main station", but I have argued that, since there are almost no examples in English of "Foo Main Station", that the nearest equivalent is also "Foo Central Station". This is reinforced, in the case of Germany, by the fact that they used the term Zentralbahnhof historically for Hauptbahnhof. There are always going to be awkward exceptions e.g. where the foreign word really means "city centre" (e.g. Zentrum) that is clearly not the same and I would advocate not translating it but leaving it as "Foo Zentrum railway station".

Hope that helps. --Bermicourt (talk) 16:09, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

We seem to have a lot of examples of where this alleged "convention" doesn't exist, but precious little on where it does exist. It seems we all pretty much agree that the idea that "central = main" has never been true in the UK, Ireland, the USA, Canada or Australia? So the issue is whether in Germany we can say "the word Bar appears in many station names. If we define Bar as meaning Central, then Foo Bar station might be called Foo Central by someone determined not to use the word Bar and not bothered about being understood".

Also, if stations called Hauptbahnhof need new names for Wikipedia, do we need "English" names for stations like Fred Street or Under the Lime Trees? Should Hohenzollernplatz (Berlin U-Bahn) become Saxe-Coburg-Gotha Square (Berlin Underground), reflecting the equivalent term for much of the English-speaking world? Wheeltapper (talk) 22:26, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Fred Street indeed; when Eileen Hall translated Emil and the Detectives, in Chapter 2 "The Police Keep Quiet", Zoologischer Garten became Zoological Gardens, but Friedrichstraße merely became Friedrich Street, without going all the way to Frederick Street. --Redrose64 (talk) 22:47, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Meh - usefulness has never been a required element of notability, but I think it should be. Bearian (talk) 17:00, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Mediran (t • c) 11:08, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Tadasana[edit]

Tadasana (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

The topic for this article does not appear to be encyclopedic in nature. The article appears to belong more to a dictionary or manual. Rioscopy (talk) 16:12, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. czar · · 16:51, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Abstain This article has been nominated for deletion before. If this article is to be deleted, the rest need to be as well.Curb Chain (talk) 19:26, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Meets WP:GNG. See article for coverage, reliable, sources. 379,000 Google hits Redtigerxyz ^Talk 12:28, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep notable and sourced, might need improvements though Gmkeros (talk) 15:22, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

---

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J04n(talk page) 11:41, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

---

• Comment Regarding Curb Chain's comment, that AfD was for Tulasana, different than Tadasana. J04n(talk page) 11:43, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No, all the asana articles were nominated.Curb Chain (talk) 01:51, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Looks like it passes WP:GNG Transcendence (talk) 22:49, 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. --BDD (talk) 16:18, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Mexican triathlon[edit]

Mexican triathlon (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

The only thing I can find about this is some facebook page on google. WP:NOTMADEUP? Brightgalrs (/braɪtˈɡæl.ərˌɛs/)^[1] 09:13, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. czar · · 14:53, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. czar · · 14:53, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. czar · · 14:53, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. What is this, a frat house?Truth or consequences-2 (talk) 17:10, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Not found on any drinking game sites. Not notable, probably not memorable for the participants either. --| Uncle Milty | talk | 17:42, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Delete No reliable sources. In its present form is purely OR. Don't see how it passes WP:GNG Transcendence (talk) 22:51, 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. Metropolitan90 (talk) 18:18, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Oleksa[edit]

Michael Oleksa (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Insufficient notability, no sourcing. Subject does not meet notability criteria. Article is utterly unsourced. User:PAWiki (talk) 03:03, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. czar · · 03:38, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Alaska-related deletion discussions. czar · · 03:38, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. czar · · 03:38, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: Shouldn't this be transcluded to the 27th instead of the 26th in the log? czar · · 03:41, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes, it should, so I have moved it. Good catch! Stalwart111 05:55, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment -- At best weak keep, buit probably delete: his notability is at best weak. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:44, 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, czar · · 07:35, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

---

• Delete No evidence of notability. Unable to find RS for subject. Transcendence (talk) 22:55, 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 incubate. Article will be moved to Wikipedia:Article Incubator/Shivalika. Metropolitan90 (talk) 18:23, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Shivalika[edit]

Shivalika (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Not notable. Wikipedia:Notability (films)  Tentinator  07:16, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. czar · · 07:54, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. czar · · 07:55, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. czar · · 07:55, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• delete per nom Jimfbleak - talk to me? 10:52, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: There is an actress who uses that singular word as her name, and searches are thus confused. Always best to refine when possible. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 22:29, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Incubate per WP:NFF and TOO SOON as film appears to be nearing completion, with voice work done two months ago. While the trailer shows the animation quality is no where near that available in American cinema, the film does use the talents of enough Hindi notables that we might expect it to have coverage when actually released. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 22:30, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Question. Isn't this based on the assumption that the film will garner notability in the future? Are we able to incubate and hold on to an article on a film for that reason? That isn't rhetorical, I really don't know the answer. MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:54, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• The answer: Quote: "The incubator is a place for holding articles that do not meet Wikipedia's content criteria (WP:NOT, WP:N, WP:OR,WP:NPOV, WP:BLP, and WP:V), but a rationale has been put forward that the article meets the incubation criteria, which means there is an intention that the article can and will be improved." We both agree that this does not yet meet inclusion criteria. However, and in considering this project's inclusion of Hindi notables, guideline allows a reasonable presumption (IE: putting for a valid rationale) that, even if not ready now, this topic could well benefit from collaborative editing and be improved to serve the project while OUT of article space. Incubation does not require notability be established now, else this would be a different discussion. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 04:52, 28 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 · · 07:32, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

---

• Trailer: check, and publicly available. Official site: not yet. It does seem to have some credibility here. So a cleanup would probably be best here. Keep. --JB Adder | Talk 15:03, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Incubate per Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} Transcendence (talk) 22:53, 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. Courcelles 00:31, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

FVD video downloader[edit]

FVD video downloader (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

It exists, but I couldn't prove WP:NOTABILITY Boleyn (talk) 06:54, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. czar · · 07:57, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. czar · · 07:57, 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 · · 07:26, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

---

• Delete Another FLV downloader among many with no unique features. Nate • (chatter) 09:38, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete software article lacking references to establish notability. Dialectric (talk) 13:43, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Our discussion here is not related to the current contents of the article, or the lack thereof. Our discussion here is designed to determine if sufficient references could be found and added to the article (read: the subject's notability). If you go only based on the quality of the article, it dissuades inexperienced editors from creating new articles and gives an advantage to experienced or even professional Wikipedia editors (the latter do exist) who can craft an article to make the subject appear more notable than it/they actually is/are. Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:01, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete No evidence of notability. AllyD (talk) 16:28, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I just checked the Firefox extensions and it's not listed by that name there. Also, I have yet to find any sources to support WP:GNG: significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:57, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep This is a software program that is used by a reasonable number of people. Therefore I think it should be kept, as other projects like this such as Feather Linux have an article, so why not this? One Of Seven Billion (talk) 18:43, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS isn't relevant to the WP:NOTABILITY of this product. Boleyn (talk) 05:18, 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. No prejudice against recreation if significant coverage in reliable sources turns up at some point. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 16:26, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Enrique Romero-Nieves[edit]

Enrique Romero-Nieves (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Majority of article is citation on awarding and requirements for Navy Cross, not really a biography mostly blatant copyright infringement with brief background. Grammarxxx ^{(What'd I do this time?)} 07:25, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. czar · · 07:36, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Puerto Rico-related deletion discussions. czar · · 07:36, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States-related deletion discussions. czar · · 07:36, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, I think there will be further sources. I don't think quoting the script is a copyright violation because if it's written by an agent of the US government, it's copyright-free to begin with. Barney the barney barney (talk) 12:04, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, does not seem to meet WP:GNG particularly the significant coverage part. A review of WP:SOLDIER, used by many editors interested in military history, would seem to indicate that he does not meet notability guidelines with the single award of the Navy Cross. While his service and sacrifice are commendable, Wikipedia is not a memorial. EricSerge (talk) 12:52, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per EricSerge. American Legion Post 102 is named in his honor, but that's about it. Clarityfiend (talk) 21:56, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom, and, in this case, WP:SOLDIER's guidelines have my full support. Buckshot06 (talk) 22:06, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Delete, the subject appears to have received some coverage in non-primary reliable sources such as in The Leatherneck (volume 75) and in the book The outpost war: the U.S. Marines in Korea, whether that coverage is significant is debatable, therefore I cannot say that the subject passes WP:GNG. Although the subject was posthumously awarded the Navy Cross, but the award alone isn't significant as defined by WP:SOLDIER for WP:ANYBIO. Therefore, I am supporting deletion of the article.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 03:16, 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. Notability has not been proven, and is not conferred through a walled garden. Ironholds (talk) 00:40, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Three Rooms Press[edit]

Three Rooms Press (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

No indication of notability; sources either don't mention the publisher at all or provide only passing mentions. Was prodded; prod removed by author without improvement. Huon (talk) 05:05, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. czar · · 05:22, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States-related deletion discussions. czar · · 05:22, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. czar · · 05:23, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment If someone can confirm that the books are available internationally, then I might consider a weak keep; in its absence, I'm sitting on the fence. --JB Adder | Talk 15:14, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment International availability of their products is not at all relevant to the requirements of WP:N, Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 16:46, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom, Notability is not established. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 16:46, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Three Rooms Press is notable because of its products. (1)it has published books by several notable individuals listed in first paragraph of section titled "Publication History." Several of the citations include news articles announcing these publications mentioning Three Rooms a the publisher as well as establishing the notability of the authors, (2) one of the two annuals of the press is now archived in the Museum of Modern Art Periodical and Recording Libraries. A link to MoMA archive catalog cited. (3) Book Reviews are listed, include a review of Mike Watt's book in the Los Angeles Review of Books.

GetDaFacts (talk) 03:12, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I reviewed over 30 similar articles currently included about small literary presses. Most cite the publishers website as primary source and include no third party citations. The measuring stick needs to be consistent. In addition to articles, there are a lot of stubs. What is the criteria for inclusion as a stub.

GetDaFacts (talk) 03:21, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment The books published by Three Rooms Press are available internationally. See Amazon's UK site. I just searched for the press and found their books. [17]

GetDaFacts (talk) 03:30, 6 May 2013 (UTC) Comment See citation (4)regarding Nassau County's first poet laureate, George Wallace "He is author of 24 chapbooks of poetry, published in the US, UK and Italy, including Poppin Johnny (Three Rooms Press, NY 2009)..."; citation (9) from Boston Globe "Next week, author Michael T. Fournier will bring his band Dead Trend to New York City to promote his new book. That’s right, book, not album. You see, despite Dead Trend being the quintessential 1980s hardcore punk band, they don’t actually exist. Or didn’t, that is, until recently, when the band crawled off of the pages of the Belchertown author’s new novel, “Hidden Wheel” (Three Rooms Press)."; citation(15) regarding Mike Watt's new book the name of the press is in the title of David Luhrssen's article "On and Off Bass (Three Rooms Press), by Mike Watt"; citation(16) "The occasion of the conversation was the release of a catalogue (On and Off Bass, available from Three Rooms Press) of Watt’s digital photographs of the San Pedro waterfront which were displayed in a gallery on the West Coast not too long ago."; citation(18)"Mike Watt (of the Minutemen, fIREHOSE, and the Stooges) is releasing the memoir Mike Watt: On and Off Bass in May via Three Rooms Press. The book will feature his nature photography and tour diaries."[reply]

Maybe my error was including too many other citations, so that these were lost in the shuffle. GetDaFacts (talk) 04:04, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Have found reviews for several books and articles about some of the authors. An established book publisher with notable books/authors; passes WP:N. I have cleaned up the article some, reorganized, removed duplicate ref, and added a source. AuthorAuthor (talk) 22:24, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The last time I checked, WP:N said this: "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article or stand-alone list." Which of the independent sources covers the publisher in any detail? None do. All MTV has to say about Three Rooms Press is this: "Shortly thereafter, the folks at Three Rooms Press decided to publish a book out of the exhibit, and culled diary excerpts and poems from the massive, 1,500-page collection of musings on HootPage.com..." That's a passing mention, not significant coverage. The closer we get to actual facts about the company, the more we have to rely on primary sources and blogs, and even that is not enough to avoid WP:OR and WP:SYN. Also, notability is not inherited; publishing the books of notable authors doesn't make the publisher notable. Huon (talk) 22:55, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• CommentReviewing [WP:N]

I read "Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material."

Several articles about the authors are about their new books from Three Room Press. There would be no article about the author unless they had a new book out. The press is mentioned as the publisher. If TRP didn't publish their book then no article would exist to be cited. The primary subject is a book -- a product of TRP. For instance The Rumpus writes "The occasion of the conversation was the release of a catalogue (On and Off Bass, available from Three Rooms Press) of Watt’s digital photographs of the San Pedro waterfront ..."

Also I've included several 3rd party sources that are not personal blogs. Personal blogs are not the primary source of information. I've cited articles from various news zines and a couple literary journals:

• The Pedestal Magazine
• The Quarterly Conversation
• Long Island Pulse Magazine
• Los Angeles Review of Books
• Rocker: The Lifestyle Magazine for Mature Rockers
• Now.
• Pitchfork
• The Boston Globe
• Explain.CA
• The Rumpus

GetDaFacts (talk) 05:14, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Commentexcerpt from the wiki page on publishing:

"Publishing is the process of production and dissemination of literature, music, or information — the activity of making information available to the general public." Articles covering book releases are covering an essential part of publishing. Note these articles are not simply book release announcements they are author interviews and book reviews.

with regards to MTV, production includes editing so article discussing the publisher's selection is hitting on another essential part of a book publisher's activity. GetDaFacts (talk) 05:39, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - in reality this article is purely promotional, while much of it is not about the company at all. The few notable authors allegedly published by the company are unproven or of questionable importance. I'm not aware of a notability guideline for book publishers, but companies generally aren't conferred notability because of their products. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NCORP. Sionk (talk) 16:17, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure what your comment "notable authors allegedly published by" the company refers to. Either they were, or they were not. According to worldcat, they were. AuthorAuthor (talk) 14:26, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The list was unsourced. The sentence is fairly self explanatory, They were allegedly notable too. Sionk (talk) 14:42, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep This article is about a notable small literary press. The article includes the typical information about book publishers found in Wikipedia. To start, a brief history of when, where, who founded; followed by information about their notable authors and publications. Several 3rd party sources are cited and listed including book reviews and new articles.

First Suffolk County Poet Laureate is notable. This is a prestigious award. Poet Laureate of Riker's with NY Times Article is notable. Vice President Editorial of major dance industry publication is notable. Founder of Minute Men rock back in notable. etc. Two of the authors are in the news with article about their book from TRP. One headline even includes TRP. One of their publication in archived in MoMA library collection. MoMA is an internationally regarded museum. GetDaFacts (talk) 05:12, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Why can't this page be redirected to a list of publishers? They must satisfy WP:NOTESAL as a group, and that allows for the inclusion of individually non-notable items in lists. James500 (talk) 19:43, 10 May 2013 (UTC) Where an article cites a book, we don't really want the publisher to be a redlink if it is possible to avoid that, because we want to know, amongst other things, that the publisher is not a vanity press. James500 (talk) 19:49, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Although the information provided on this page is provided by Three Rooms Press, its actual inclusion in Poets & Writers' listings for small presses seems to be based on objectively assessed criteria ("we do confirm that each publisher adheres to our standards for inclusion"). I suggest that Three Rooms Press should be included in and redirected to List of small presses on the strength of that, if it is not established to be independently notable. James500 (talk) 20:58, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• I oppose the outright deletion of this article. James500 (talk) 21:42, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment the source of the much of the information included about subject is not available from the subject webpage or blog. For instance a list of books was gather from WorldCat and Amazon. Information regarding the contents of the annual Maintenant 7 was garnished from a physical copy of the book. 67.85.159.0 (talk) 20:35, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Userfy, for (possible) inclusion in a list of small publishers. Article's subject does not meet WP:CORPDEPTH: "Trivial or incidental coverage of a subject is not sufficient to establish notability". As for reducing the article to a stub, the notability guideline makes no distinction for article size. Miniapolis 13:39, 14 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. Also SK#1 (nom withdrawn). (non-admin closure) czar · · 10:09, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Cave in Sumatra[edit]

Cave in Sumatra (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

No indication of notability, although a claim of importance has been made.  — Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:20, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Looks like a fairly solid keep here with this new info. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:02, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletion discussions. czar · · 03:26, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. czar · · 03:27, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nomination. Might become notable if a real find and archeological/police findings are exceptional. But, bones in a cave is hardly WP-worthy.Truth or consequences-2 (talk) 12:19, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. No indication of notability. Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 12:38, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep with Chiswick Chap's expansion of the article. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 13:35, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment It is a little better than that: the cave is the first example of rock art in Sumatra, and the source of the largest number of skeletons found on any site in Indonesia, so those are two claims to notability, and the article is now referenced. I would be thinking about a merge to Archaeology in Sumatra if such an article existed; meanwhile, this stub/start is not much worse than some other articles on Sumatran archaeology. If we decide not to keep it at the moment, I'd be willing to begin Archaeology in Sumatra in my user space to gather up what we have on this and other archaeological sites in Sumatra into something referenced and readable. Ping me if needed. Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:23, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for clarifying. This changes my take.Truth or consequences-2 (talk) 16:47, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename to the cave's name, since "Cave in Sumatra" is just slightly vague. Ansh666 20:08, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename definitely. Seems like an important discovery, but the title of the page is horrible[User:Gmkeros|Gmkeros]] (talk) 11:00, 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.