< 26 September	28 September >

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. JohnCD (talk) 15:33, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sublime (company)[edit]

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

I’m nominating this article for deletion for a number of reasons involving notability and factuality:

The company just opened, it's implied, within the last month or so, so notability seems unlikely.
If I specify "Basildon" in my Google query (to distinguish this company from Sublime Media in Seattle, for example), I get 36 hits, none of them to third-party reliable sources.
The links to “Site of the Year 2013” intended to corroborate the award claims lead to a page that says nothing about awards, nothing about “Site of the Year”, and nothing about Sublime.
I was skeptical about the awards anyway for several reasons, none of them conclusive on their own but offered here in conjunction with my previous observations. (a) Given that there are three months left in 2013, who is giving out awards for best-of-2013? (b) Given that they just opened, how have they had time to produce all this award-winning work? (c) Looking at their own website I see that it has missing images, the text on their What We Do page is off the screen in Firefox, and their Our Work page is laid out wrong in IE and Firefox, with the calendar column overlapping the large image. Not what I would expect from a company that is winning web design awards.

—Largo Plazo (talk) 22:12, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. —Largo Plazo (talk) 22:25, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. —Largo Plazo (talk) 22:26, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. —Largo Plazo (talk) 22:26, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not because I'm not impressed with their site, but for the lack of notability shown and proved. I've deleted this once already, and couldn't see the relevance of the link to what appears to be someone called Stefan's Bootstrap work. The company appears to have a 'date of birth' (taken from the Persondata on the version deleted by NawlinWiki yesterday) of 28 February 2013 - which definitely doesn't explain why one of the Stefan Crain references was allegedly retrieved on the 24th February 2013 - four days before the company was 'born' and several months before the first version of the article (the other SC link was retrieved two days later). The first version was wasn't referenced, but had links to the company's site, Facebook and Twitter. If they got 10 clients in the first month, obviously someone liked what they do, even if I don't (personal taste...). There are at least two more Sublime Medias in the UK - sublimemediauk.com in Earl's Barton, Northants and sublimemedia.co.uk in London, but a dead link. Confusingly, the one here is sublimededia.co - a Columbian domain. Peridon (talk) 23:03, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Incidentally, the Samrisa Blanca site referred to says it was developed by iVivid Media (and doesn't tell you where they are - which isn't helpful if you are in Inverness wanting your teeth whitened, and they're in, say, Folkestone...). Your Wedding Plan is also iVivid (and down for refurbishment), and Running Man appears to be a disco or so on, doesn't tell you what area, and was developed by iVisual [sic] Media, copyright 2012. Interesting. Probably a good explanation somewhere... Peridon (talk) 23:20, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Re .co, some businesses have picked up on that TLD when the corresponding .com one is already in use. Like all those .tv websites that aren't based in Tuvalu. :-) —Largo Plazo (talk) 14:50, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, these awards don't seem notable and neither does the company. NawlinWiki (talk) 11:51, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:V and lack of any indication that the claims to notability are actually claims to notability (i.e. A7 might apply). Recommending that this run its course rather than be speedy-deleted so future re-creations with only minor improvements can be summarily deleted as "G4. Recreation of a page that was deleted per a deletion discussion" even if they arguably escape A7. In other words, allow a new article on the topic only if it's CLEARLY notable, i.e. AFD-proof with respect to notability. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 01:51, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Information I have reported the author's username, IVMoRiginal (talk · contribs), to Wikipedia:Usernames for administrator attention. I expect that he will be required to change his username shortly. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 02:29, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I just blocked the creator over their name; I am not impressed that the company is notable, either. Just winning awards isn't enough—there are so many out there. It would have to be a notable award. Daniel Case (talk) 17:30, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No coverage in reliable sources. -- Whpq (talk) 15:46, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- Has the look of a rather new one-man band to me. Even their own website hardly looks well designed to me. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:27, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Indeed, this page about what they do includes a bunch of "Image Here" texts and gray text on gray background. Not the best thing to be doing if you are web design company. -- Whpq (talk) 17:34, 4 October 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. JohnCD (talk) 15:39, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Team WWE[edit]

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

Much like the deleted Team Smackdown and Team Raw articles, this is a laborious read, chronicling three very different teams which existed over the course of a decade. These three teams have next to nothing in common. LM2000 (talk) 21:46, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. NiciVampireHeart 21:58, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I wish we had a way to speedily delete these articles, there is really no lasting notability at all. Not to mention the various teams under this umbrella name, have nothing in common. STATic message me! 22:09, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Nominator. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 00:18, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – My suspicions were raised upon reading the WP:PW assessment criteria, particularly "Providing references to reliable sources should come first" WRT the Start-Class criteria. Yet, someone rated this C-Class with no references whatsoever? Hmmm... RadioKAOS – Talk to me, Billy 01:33, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Pure WP:FANCRUFT, and not encyclopaedic enough to stand as its own article. The various incarnations of "Team WWE" have nothing to do with one another, and there's no reason why they require their own article rather than getting a brief mention in the relevant PPV articles. — Richard BB 08:46, 1 October 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. JohnCD (talk) 15:40, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Stephen Mulcahy[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTY. Has not played first-team football in a fully professional league or received significant media coverage. JMHamo (talk) 16:00, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Has been included in a Multi AfD in the past.. WP:Articles for deletion/Mark McNulty (footballer)

Delete - per nom, standard non-notable footballer, has also not played internationally. Fenix down (talk) 16:36, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 19:10, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 19:14, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nom. He has not played in a fully pro league or received significant coverage, meaning the article fails WP:NSPORT and WP:GNG. Sir Sputnik (talk) 18:05, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Yeah, it doesn't look like he's played in a league that would make him famous per WP:NFOOTY. T C N7JM 01:56, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:58, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:58, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:58, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - it hasn't been mentioned in this discussion, but it looks like the nominator forgot to list this discussion in the daily log of deletion discussion (step3), but Sir Sputnik listed it on September 27. Mentoz86 (talk) 20:47, 28 September 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 the subject fails WP:NFOOTY. Also fails WP:GNG as the subject hasn't received significant in-depth coverage in reliable sources. Mentoz86 (talk) 20:49, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List of Autobots#Robots in Disguise. JohnCD (talk) 17:57, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Omega Prime[edit]

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

This character does not establish notability independent of Transformers through the inclusion of real world information from reliable, third party sources. Most of the information is made up of overly in-depth plot details better suited to Wikia. There is no current assertion for future improvement of the article, so extended coverage is unnecessary. TTN (talk) 16:24, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or redirect to List of Autobots. I don't see any notability, and finding reliable sources has proved difficult. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 23:30, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:27, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:27, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The article needs sources to be keep. There are lots of YouTube videos that feature that Autobot, can those be used?Frmorrison (talk) 18:33, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

YouTube videos are not reliable sources. Reliable sources would be a newspaper, magazine, academic journal, or website with editorial control and a history of fact-checking. Fansites, blogs, YouTube videos and other user-generated content do not count as reliable sources and can not be used to establish notability. If no professional journalists deem a topic worthy of note, then Wikipedia does not, either. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 20:26, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Tom Morris (talk) 06:00, 19 September 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, KTC (talk) 21:48, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or redirect to List of Autobots. No sources, fails WP:GNG.Folken de Fanel (talk) 16:37, 4 October 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. JohnCD (talk) 15:47, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Edward Ritchie Bellemare[edit]

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

fails WP:BIO and WP:DIPLOMAT. he was simply a Chargés d'affaires ad interim which is not the full status of a permanent ambassador. LibStar (talk) 07:59, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I can't find coverage in reliable sources, and he was never a permanent ambassador. Pburka (talk) 12:08, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:04, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:05, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:05, 19 September 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, KTC (talk) 21:47, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no evidence of notability. It's important to note that diplomats are civil servants, and few actually receive in-depth coverage in reliable sources. Nick-D (talk) 01:19, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't understand this logic. Are you suggesting that because diplomats are civil servants, they're less likely than other people to receive coverage in reliable sources? Pburka (talk) 01:23, 5 October 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. JohnCD (talk) 15:49, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Orivian[edit]

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

Not notable. Fails WP:MUSICBIO. GregJackP Boomer! 13:45, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What is the problem with it ? I have added all sorts of release references for what I have now & as soon as the other OST is released I will add the link there aswell. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Orivian (talk • contribs) 15:05, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:02, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:02, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Not notable at all. Doesn't Qualify Wikipedia Notability guidelines. --VI-007 (talk) 14:56, 12 September 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, — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:04, 19 September 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, KTC (talk) 21:46, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per lack of substantial coverage in reliable independent sources. Candleabracadabra (talk) 22:22, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per lack of coverage in sources, also not article fails WP:EXT - external links are not inserted into the article like that and are not considered as Sources. Adrianw9 (talk) 17:38, 29 September 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. JohnCD (talk) 15:51, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

VIC (band)[edit]

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

Not notable, references are either band blog, myspace , other blog or deadlink/missing page. Unsigned and no chart success. They fail WP:GNG and WP:NMUSIC Murry1975 (talk) 12:50, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:28, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:28, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Actually the very first reference is to Hot Press. 78.19.91.239 (talk) 01:25, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Notability not established. A minor act. — O'Dea (talk) 11:00, 22 September 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, KTC (talk) 21:46, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Minor defunct band, not notable. Snappy (talk) 20:03, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, since these guys appear to fail WP:BAND and WP:GNG. — sparklism ^hey! 07:32, 3 October 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. KTC (talk) 07:12, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Amfisound[edit]

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

Non-notable company. No GNews/Book hits (excluding books that are sourced from Wikipedia), no GHits other than SPS, social media, and Youtube. CSD tags (A7) twice removed by page creator. GregJackP Boomer! 12:55, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Several bands use these guitars. Triosphere, a well-known band in Norway ^[1]. The brand is less known than the usual guitar-giants - Fender, Ibanez, Gibson, etc., but it is not a run-from-the-garage company, as they build guitars for some of the industry's most respected acts. Kalmah, also a well-known metal band from Finland has both the Kokko brothers using them. ^[2] User talk:OneArchetype

The mere fact that a business has customers doesn't qualify it as notable under Wikipedia's guidelines. Have reliable sources reported on Amfisound? GregJackP indicated that he wasn't able to find any such sources. Material published to Wikipedia should be a compilation of information found in reliable, third-party sources.—Largo Plazo (talk) 14:57, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

References

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Finland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:32, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:32, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:32, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Apart from the notrebel review of a single instrument, the only refs are company sites or band-related sites that show bands are using the guitars. Searching did not uncover significant reliable source coverage of the company. Dialectric (talk) 05:16, 21 September 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, KTC (talk) 21:45, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and perhaps userfy. Article needs citations to substantial coverage in reliable independent sources if any exist. Candleabracadabra (talk) 22:24, 27 September 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. JohnCD (talk) 15:53, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Lost in Flight[edit]

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

Not notable, references are either band blog, myspace , other blog or deadlink/missing page. Unsigned and no chart success. They fail WP:GNG and WP:NMUSIC Murry1975 (talk) 12:51, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2013 September 19. —cyberbot I ^Notify_Online 13:43, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:33, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:33, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Notability not established. A minor act. — O'Dea (talk) 10:59, 22 September 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, KTC (talk) 21:39, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I cannot find any evidence that these guys meet WP:BAND or WP:GNG. — sparklism ^hey! 07:31, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:BAND. Snappy (talk) 16:20, 4 October 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. JohnCD (talk) 15:42, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nate Bourdeau[edit]

(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 the articles creator. Sir Sputnik (talk) 21:36, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 21:37, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The footballer hasn't played in a fully pro league, so he isn't notable as a football player. I can't find a source to cite the fact that he was on the U18 national team in 2007, though I don't think that alone would make him notable. T C N7JM 02:12, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 09:22, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:56, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:56, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:56, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails notability guidelines. – Michael (talk) 19:22, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per guidelines noted above. Fenix down (talk) 08:07, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
'"defense"' - define "fully pro league" for many players this is their full time job, so it does not fall under semi pro. The MISL is the second highest paying league in the United States and pays much more than a majority of leagues overseas.
- Comment - A league for which reliable sources can be provided that indicate it is fully professional, rather than containing a mixture of pro and semi-pro teams. Fenix down (talk) 14:59, 30 September 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. JohnCD (talk) 16:00, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Hext[edit]

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

Individual does not appear to meet notability guidelines for musicians. Article contains no references, and a search for such references turns up nothing viable for establishing a claim of notability. Subject is currently neither Principal nor Chair trombonist but merely performs at the Royal Opera House. For these reasons, I propose that the article on him be deleted. KDS4444^Talk 17:30, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:05, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:05, 20 September 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, KTC (talk) 21:35, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The article does make the assertion that he was principal trombonist for the London Philharmonic Orchestra. It isn't sourced but it bears inverstigattion and would establish notability. That aside, his win of the BBC Young Musician of the Year received lots of coverage: [1], [2], [3], [4]. -- Whpq (talk) 16:10, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep -- We have masses of articles on bands of whom I have never heard. I do not see why we should not keep articles on orchestral musicians. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:55, 4 October 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. JohnCD (talk) 15:54, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Shader Radio[edit]

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

Unreferenced, insufficient claim of notability, (tagged for cleanup since 2007) RJFJR (talk) 18:07, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Delete per lack of substantial coverage in reliable independent sources. Candleabracadabra (talk) 13:03, 20 September 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, KTC (talk) 21:33, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No coverage in reliable sources. -- Whpq (talk) 16:12, 2 October 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. JohnCD (talk) 16:02, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

International Society for Philosophical Enquiry[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Despite calls for better information to back up WP:ORG requirements through article tag since October 2012, there appear to be no reliable sources showing notability of this organization. Its existence is unquestioned, but the organization website itself suggests a very obscure, low-membership organization, whose members appear to the outside world solely through self-published books. There is basically no external information about the organization as such available through any reliable source. WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 19:19, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:11, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There are additional sources in High IQ society. I'm not in a position to check them but our Wikipedia article on this topic, which is better sourced than this article, seems to suggest this is one of the early and notable high IQ societies. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 18:50, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I check the sources on High IQ society too. (That article used to have entries for several entirely spurious organizations.) While the existence of the organization that is the topic of the nominated article here is beyond doubt, the requirements of WP:ORG do not appear to be met by all of the available sources in the aggregate. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 19:05, 20 September 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, KTC (talk) 21:33, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per discussion above indicating lack of substantial coverage in reliable independent sources. Candleabracadabra (talk) 22:26, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The only sources I can find are self-published. Nwlaw63 (talk) 23:32, 27 September 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 Beast Wars: Transformers . — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:45, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Golden Disk[edit]

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

This does not establish notability independent of Transformers through the inclusion of real world information from reliable, third party sources. Most of the information is made up of plot details better suited to Wikia. There is no current assertion for future improvement of the article, so extended coverage is unnecessary. TTN (talk) 20:36, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:27, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:28, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect or merge to Beast Wars: Transformers. Deletion is also acceptable, but I recommend a redirect/merge, as this seems to be a major element of the fictional background. Merging may be difficult, as the writing is unsourced and reliable sources do not seem to exist on Google, so a redirect may be preferable. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 04:34, 20 September 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, KTC (talk) 21:32, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Major plot device from an anime, and has a notable citations. Mathewignash (talk) 01:54, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge (and trim) into Beast Wars: Transformers or Redirect per NinjaRobotPirate. No significant coverage from independent secondary sources, fails WP:GNG. The notable citations Mathewignash refers to don't exist.Folken de Fanel (talk) 20:12, 4 October 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, though I've since redirected it to Planeswalker. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:47, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Freyalise[edit]

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

This character does not establish notability independent of Magic: The Gathering through the inclusion of real world information from reliable, third party sources. Most of the information is made up of plot details better suited to Wikia. There is no current assertion for future improvement of the article, so extended coverage is unnecessary. TTN (talk) 21:17, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. N92413 (talk) 21:31, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:52, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:52, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Planeswalker Beyond the basic card info, I haven't found any authoritative sources online. Existence is verifiable, so redirect is best option, per WP:ATD-M. --Mark viking (talk) 06:20, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete per WP:CSD#7. Bbb23 (talk) 18:33, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Adryelle[edit]

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

Doesn't seem to pass WP:NMUSIC. Not certain whether it's eligible for CSD. {_C A S U K I T E ^T} 14:54, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: It's kind of iffy. She doesn't seem to be notable and she seems to have only played on a local college radio station and nn internet radio shows, so she might pass. I can tag it, but I think that ultimately it'll depend on the admin. They might count the small record label contract as just enough notability to warrant passing a speedy. From what I can find, I doubt she'd pass the AfD, so a speedy might be a mercy killing. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 16:56, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I don't know if this will be speedied, but ultimately this artist isn't notable. There's one Patch article, which is a local source. I'm sort of iffy about using those in general now, except as a backup source for trivial data on an article whose notability is already established. She just isn't notable. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 17:01, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Maryland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:18, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:18, 27 September 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. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:52, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Department of Literary Arts at Brown University[edit]

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

This page serves no real purpose. First of all, I don't think it is usual for university departments (especially small ones) to have their own pages. Second of all, it cites no sources, and merely serves as a list of alumni and staff, many of whom are not notable themselves. Not to mention this comment on the talk page: "If you should find this page and want your name added to the list of alums, please leave me a note here or on my talk page" by Atrivedi (talk), who is also on the list. RGloucester — 📬 00:09, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I might also want to mention a much earlier instance of similar behavior by the creator of this page. RGloucester — 📬 00:14, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I admit it needs work. I should mention that a) I am not the original author of the page b) the link you're pointing to, in which I created a Wikipedia page for myself, was towards the beginning of my time editing Wikipedia, before I knew there were user pages. Yes, it's a smaller program than Iowa's Writer's Workshop or University of Massachusetts' MFA Program for Poets & Writers, but I'm not sure why their MFA programs are more valid than Brown's. Yes, needs more work, no question, but no one else has jumped in...yet. Atrivedi (talk) 23:27, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'd also like to mention that I previous had bios for faculty members, like the UMass page and was told to remove that, which I did. And now being told there's not enough info on the page...hmmm...Atrivedi (talk) 23:30, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

About the note on the Talk page: the idea was to verify names with the Department, who do not release the names of alumni publicly. I realize that's a citation issue but to be honest, no one has contacted me :) Atrivedi (talk) 23:49, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It is quite simple: this page is personal promotion, pure and simple. Please see WP:SOAP on that matter. Furthermore, there is no mention of the notability of this department in third party sources. See WP:ORG. RGloucester — 📬 00:34, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Alright- removed myself in the inclusion of alum and went with "notable alum" (I guess basically people with Wiki pages already, not that UMass didn't just add pages for as many people as they could get away with). Also, not sure if this will count for you, but it's a start: on Seth Abramson's list of Top 50 MFA Programs, Brown is listed as #6^[1]. Atrivedi (talk) 01:00, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Just because the UMASS article does something does not mean it is right. That article does not meet the criteria either, and should most likely be deleted. I merely noticed this one first. RGloucester — 📬 01:48, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and just because my tone may seem harsh (my electronic communications tend to have an odd tone) doesn't mean that I don't appreciate your congeniality in this regard. RGloucester — 📬 01:52, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Rhode Island-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:43, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:43, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I do feel a bit singled out, especially since, again, I'm not the one who started the page. I find it odd that we went through 12 rounds trying to get the photo done and no one asked if the page was legit then. If you're getting rid of all MFA program pages...I'll be you no one is getting rid of Iowa's :) I'm attempting to be congenial- I didn't much care for the implication that I was trying to self-promote, but I can see how it would feel that way. You're right: it's a smaller program, but only because it is super selective. I'm not sure where we go from here, but I'm definitely interested in continuing the discussion. As you see, I've been here nearly a decade myself and do care about what's good for Wikipedia too. Also, I didn't think anything of your tone- it mostly just sounded very serious! Atrivedi (talk) 10:56, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's all well and good, but if you've been here for a decade you should know the basic Wikipedia policies of verifiability and notability. I'm aware it is a small program, &c. &c. That's not my concern. My concern is that without "significant coverage in reliable secondary sources", the department doesn't warrant an article here. RGloucester — 📬 12:27, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Verifiability I see your point on. Notability I take issue with. I imagine the person who started the article did so upon seeing the pages of other creative writing MFA programs. As I linked you, the program is well ranked AND, upon looking at the faculty list, among writers, some of those folks are incredibly notable, same as with other programs, which, by the by, I still don't see those up for deletion. As for your actual concern, like I said, it needs work, probably by someone more trained in Wiki rules to get it done. I didn't assume I'd be the only one working on it :) Atrivedi (talk) 21:00, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

One thing at a time. The people that are notable have their own articles, but that doesn't satisfy the notability requirement for organizations. RGloucester — 📬 21:27, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What's next? I'm not sure I agree, having read the notability page for organizations, but it seems we are at an impasse. Atrivedi (talk) 00:45, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

We wait for others to comment. RGloucester — ☎ 01:16, 24 September 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, — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:36, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per lack of coverage in reliable independent sources. Candleabracadabra (talk) 22:28, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Individual programmes or departments are not often notable in Wikipedia's sense, which would require references showing significant coverage from outside the university (see Wikipedia:College and university article guidelines#Faculties and academic colleges and WP:OUTCOMES#Parts of schools and school-related organizations). References cited here are all local. The program doesn't inherit notability from notable faculty and ex-faculty. Similar articles may well have slipped through, but per WP:Other stuff exists that is not an argument for keeping this one. JohnCD (talk) 18:43, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I think the consensus is well established that we do not cover individual academic departments unless they are as a department world-famous. The individual notable people in the department should of course have articles--as individuals. (I am not absolutely sure I agree with the consensus, but it has been very consistent.) DGG ( talk ) 22:31, 6 October 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. I suggest a merge discussion as a way forward. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:00, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Shaper of Worlds[edit]

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

This character does not establish notability independent of Marvel Comics through the inclusion of real world information from reliable, third party sources. Most of the information is made up of plot details better suited to Wikia. There is no current assertion for future improvement of the article, so extended coverage is unnecessary. TTN (talk) 20:52, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into List of Marvel Comics characters: S. Not independently notable. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 21:11, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That page is 127K and so, per WP:SIZE, is far too large. Further merger and bloat is therefore not appropriate. By keeping entries on their separate pages like this, the material is easier to both read and edit. This is especially important with the small screens of mobile devices and the new visual editor. Warden (talk) 12:00, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge into List of Marvel Comics characters: S. BOZ (talk) 21:21, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 23:52, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 23:52, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 23:52, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The topic is notable, appearing in multiple reference works including:

Marvel Graphic Novels and Related Publications: An Annotated Guide to Comics
The Encyclopedia of Super Villains
500 Comicbook Villains
The Marvel Comics Encyclopedia

Warden (talk) 11:43, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Do any of them provide relevant real world details? Given their titles, I would think it unlikely. Searching inside two of the available ones on Google Books, it is mentioned within the context of its role in the plot on three pages between the two books. That is not enough to even qualify as a minor mention, let alone the significant coverage necessary to establish notability. TTN (talk) 15:07, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I was just going to post the same thing. Looks like trivial mentions to me. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 19:35, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I do not share your glass-half-empty perspective. The sources clearly aim to detail major super villains and this character seems to qualify, having appeared in a variety of titles over many years. I have no particular knowledge of the topic myself but was able to locate these substantial sources quite quickly. You guys clearly haven't lifted a finger to research the topic and your opinions just seem to be drive-by, cookie-cutter, knee-jerk deletionism. My !vote stands. Warden (talk) 17:05, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

before you continue to make accusations about what another editor may or may not have done or thought, I would remind you of the policy of WP:NPA and WP:AGF. Do you have any evidence to support your claims of what the or are you just blowing steam out of your ass? -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 23:09, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
As I pointed out, two of those do not even cover the character in an entry. It is literally mentioned once on a single page three times between the two books as a passing mention in the character's role in the plotlines of other characters. The other two aren't available online as far as I can tell, but it is up to you to prove that they contain anything substantial. That isn't even including the fact that they are unlikely to contain any actual information besides restating plot information, which makes them completely useless as sources to establish notability. TTN (talk) 18:21, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I have a higher standard of notability than some and lower than others. I'm perfectly willing to invest time and effort in researching a topic to establish notability, fixing salvageable articles, and arguing for their retention. Your accusations show a lack of good faith, and I would remind you that we're all here to make a better encyclopedia. There will always be disagreement in areas that depend on opinion or interpretation, and some editors will simply disagree with you that you've established notability. This does not make them "knee-jerk deletionists". I am skeptical of claims of notability based on comprehensive encyclopedias for the same reasons as TTN. This may frustrate you and strike you as too high of a standard for notability, but I would appreciate it if you didn't resort to bad faith accusations and personal attacks. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 21:30, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Editors acting in good faith would thank me for finding such good sources and would rethink their position. Sadly such behaviour is so rarely found at AFD that I go out of my way to praise it when it occurs. Warden (talk) 23:01, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Why would I thank you for insulting me and finding trivial mentions? Keep this up and you'll end up in WP:AIV. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 08:25, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The entries are not trivial because they include separate main entries and entries in indexes. These sources clearly indicate that the topic has been repeatedly noticed and that inclusion in a work of reference is appropriate. My !vote stands per our editing policy. Warden (talk) 12:00, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

They aren't even trivial at this point. They're absolutely worthless because two have been shown to be completely worthless and you have yet to even prove the character receives any coverage at all in the other two. Then there is the fact that even entries would be worthless if they contain nothing of the character's development, reception, cultural impact, ect. You cannot imply being name-dropped in a book is an indicator of notability no matter how much you want to skew the idea of significant coverage. TTN (talk) 15:25, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The entries in works such as The Encyclopedia of Super Villains are neither trivial nor worthless because they demonstrate how independent works of reference document topics like the one before us. You don't like the way they do this and want to stop Wikipedia from doing the same. But you have no authority to impose your standards, opinions and value judgements upon other editors. The work of independent professionals is a better guide to what is appropriate here too. My !vote stands. Warden (talk) 12:39, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't even have an entry in that one. You're just listing random books hoping that it is mentioned in detail. It's just a listing of fictional details, so there would be nothing to add to the article from it anyway. Fiction related articles need sources with significant real world details to meet WP:NOTPLOT and WP:WAF, so it is not like there is nothing more than my opinion behind this. There are notable comic book characters able to have information on their creation, reception, cultural impact, and other such details. There are also those that have nothing of the sort available, so they cannot meet the encyclopedic standards of the site, much like this one. TTN (talk) 16:36, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

These are not "random books" - they are reference works which document this type of material in this type of way. The Shaper is related to the Cosmic Cube and the Red Skull. These are all blue links, as they should be, because they form part of the complex web of characters and artifacts from the Marvel Universe - another blue link. This stuff is notable because professional authors and publishers produce reference works documenting this stuff in detail and they do that because it finds a ready audience. There might be some scope for restructuring and reorganisation of this material but titles such as this should remain blue links to assist readers in navigating the complex web of data. Deletion therefore plays no part in this and the rest is a matter of ordinary editing per WP:ATD. My !vote stands. Warden (talk) 16:20, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You have yet to actually show that the character has any true coverage in them, let alone significant coverage. You just completely shifted the conversation without addressing the actual issue of not even having sources in the first place. None of what you just said can satisfy WP:N and WP:WAF. It is only your opinion on how articles should be managed, so you should probably take that up on the related pages to change that. Articles can always be deleted and given a new redirect afterward, so that is hardly an argument to avoid deletion. TTN (talk) 16:42, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You're the one who has to make a case here and I am still not persuaded that there is any reason to use the delete function here. The sources cited certainly contain coverage of the topic and so I am confident that there is more we could do to improve the article. My !vote stands. Warden (talk) 17:09, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm hardly attempting to convince you. I'm just showing that your rational has no basis in current policy for the closing admin to hopefully put less weight on your on opinion to keep it. As I said up above, two of them have exactly three mentions of the name without even explaining the character, and I can't even find a mention of it in the villain encyclopedia. I don't know about the fourth one, but I doubt it has anything. That hardly shows potential for future improvement. TTN (talk) 17:20, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In these numerous discussions, you never, ever accept the sources which good-faith editors present. You seem to lack a neutral point of view. Or perhaps your standards are just impossibly high. I remain content with the sources as evidence of notability because they show that the topic has been noticed. My !vote stands. Warden (talk) 19:16, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It hardly has to do with overly high standards, but the fact that people are flinging the most minor, trivial "sources" in an attempt to act as if the topic is actually notable. There are ways interpret policies and guidelines differently, but there is a very clear sense of what makes a fictional topic notable. None of what you have presented complies with WAF, and it does not allow the article to comply with NOTPLOT. I believe many characters deserve articles, and many more do not deserve them. That's neutral enough as far as I can tell. I'm certainly not going around and nominating them because they are only fictional characters, but because they are fictional elements that do not properly satisfy current standards. If I ever nominate Jack Sparrow, you can call me overly biased. TTN (talk) 20:29, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The sources presented are neither minor nor trivial. They are reference works written as books and with content about exactly this sort of topic. Warden (talk) 21:54, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

the source may be significant enough to stop a truck, but if it doesnt cover the specific subject of the article in a more than trivial manner, the weight of the source itself doesnt count. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 23:15, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge. I couldn't find enough reliable sources to justify a standalone article. As for the target, Cosmic Cube might be more appropriate than List of Marvel Comics characters, though either could work. --Cerebellum (talk) 01:07, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 03:09, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Asking for real world details is relevant only if we are discussing the WP coverage of the entire work (or, in this case, group of works. When a fictional universe is so complicated or important or has so many different manifestations, that w need to divide up the coverage (as we certainly do for this one), then the individual parts of it will some of them necessarily be about only the in-universe portions. Otherwise, it's like asking that a subarticle on someone's Scientific work doesn't talk about his Life--in a split article, that's inevitable. If one really thinks this way, we can solve it by rtaining all the content and merging it into asingle very long article, but that's not a useful arrangement. DGG ( talk ) 02:51, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That has absolutely no basis in our current guidelines and policies, and it is only how you feel they should be handled. Character lists are considered acceptable splits (and can often support themselves anyway), but anything else has to support itself per WP:N, WP:NOTPLOT, ect. If such articles are merged into a longer list article, it will but cut until an acceptable amount of weight is given to each character, as it has always been. TTN (talk) 15:43, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The real-world issue that you keep obsessing about is largely irrelevant for this sort of topic which is inherently imaginary. The way this is done is just a matter of writing style, not deletion. For our purpose, it is adequate to maintain contact with the real world by citing the publication and issue in which salient developments have occurred. This is especially useful in a comic universe where there are often multiple comic book titles and story-arcs in which particular fictional creations recur. Warden (talk) 16:25, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No, characters can have a real world impact, and a number of FAs can readily attest to that. They need to establish their own independent notability per WP:N, and as I said above, your opinions are contrary to the current guidelines and editing consensus. They can be redirected to a suitable topic, but they cannot be allowed to stand alone because of some apparent importance that you have given them. TTN (talk) 16:42, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sensuous? This is not a featured article review. We only have a few FAs and it is unrealistic to expect every topic to aspire to that level. If you want FAs then you should be working on those topics which seem promising, not wasting your time in arguing about the other sort. Warden (talk) 17:09, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have no idea how I did that. The point is that characters have real world impact, so the argument of independent, real world notability being "largely irrelevant" and "inherently imaginary" makes little sense. There are plenty of characters that can reach the level of establishing notability, and there are many that cannot reach that level. Those that fail to meet it do not suddenly get a free pass because of supposed importance that can be generally be summed up elsewhere without difficulty. If the characters have no sources or only sources that recount only fictional details, they cannot meet the relevant rules. TTN (talk) 17:20, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, consensus not sensuous. My fingers type malapropisms like that too. I must see if the phenomenon has been researched. Anyway, your theory about real-world impact is ludicrous. Fictional characters are imaginary and that's mostly that. When we consider the characters of Dickens, Shakespeare and Conan Doyle, we are not especially concerned with their real-world impact, whatever that may be. What we want to know is their appearance, their mannerisms and their personality. The fact that Sherlock Holmes smokes a pipe, for example. That is the essential coverage of them. Any real-world linkage, such as being based upon a real person known to the author, is mostly trivia. Warden (talk) 17:41, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I really can't say anything other than "your opinions are contrary to the current guidelines and editing consensus." WP:WAF is quite clear on what is required, backed by WP:NOTPLOT and WP:N. There is always room for debate and interpretations, but you're just completely ignoring them. Characters receive appropriate weight depending on their real world relevance, and hundreds, probably thousands, have been merged, redirected, or deleted because of a lack of that. That's just the reality of it until someone changes the relevant rules. TTN (talk) 20:29, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Those are just weak guidelines and stylistic issues. I prefer the stronger policies of WP:PRESERVE, WP:CENSOR and WP:NOTPAPER. As for rules note, per WP:NOTLAW that "Written rules do not themselves set accepted practice." It is clearly accepted practise to have pages about characters in the Marvel universe - we have thousands of them. Even if we wanted to consolidate some of the minor characters, we would still have them as blue links and so deletion is not appropriate. You're the one trying to rock the boat and overturn this existing practise and consensus. Warden (talk) 23:20, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weak? Really? I get that you're in favor of a more inclusionist site, but really? You can certainly argue against them, but to even claim that there is no established consensus on fiction and notability is just not true. Everywhere on this site has been pruning articles for a long time now, and just because it hasn't happened to one section does not mean it is a consensus to have them without establishing notability. I don't get why people bring up the whole red links thing. If it is deleted, there can be the creation of a new redirect to the appropriate article. TTN (talk) 23:36, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to have been absent from Wikipedia for four years - from 2009 until just recently. While you were away, there wasn't some great purge of this stuff like you started. On the whole, most editors seem content to let sleeping dogs lie. Now that you're back and off on this big deletion spree, your activity is attracting adverse comment because it seems to be unusual. You appear to be a zealot and such extremism is not the stuff of consensus. As for the redlink issue, that's a big deal to me because is a bright-line test of the appropriateness of deletion. If we expect something to be a blue link then we shouldn't be deleting it. And the rest is then a matter of ordinary editing. Deleting something and then recreating it is wasteful and disruptive. Warden (talk) 23:52, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

the fact that crap hasn't been dealt with for a long time is justification that it needs to be dealt with now, not justification that we should let it sit around longer. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 11:33, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No evidence has been presented that we have any kind of problem here. The page has existed for many years. It gets a respectable level of traffic and there are no complaints on the talk page; not one. The nomination is obviously a drive-by, being made in a disruptive, battleground way, contrary to deletion policy and without notifying any of the page's authors. Warden (talk) 22:06, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

there is too evidence presented that there is a problem here. There are not independent reliable sources provided that show that the subject has been covered in a significant manner by such sources, and so the article fails the basic criteria for a stand alone article. You personally may not see that as a problem, but that is your idiosyncratic view of the policy adopted and supported by the community as a whole to apply to all articles. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 23:13, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep decent coverage in reliable sources (ie the books listed by Warden) has been provided, there could eventually be a further discussion about the opportunity of merging/redirecting the content in a parent article, but this clearly goes outside AfD's duty and could be discussed in the article's talk page. Cavarrone 22:50, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If you didn't happen to glance at our discussion, those do not cover the character at all. The two available on Google books do not even talk about the character. There are only three passing mentions in relation to other characters, and it is literally just the name without any further context. There is no guarantee the others even mention the character in any more detail, so "decent coverage" is quite the stretch. TTN (talk) 22:57, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Those sources certainly cover the topic - that's how I found them. Warden (talk) 23:12, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Are you really saying a passing mention in a book is enough to establish significant coverage? We're not talking about detailed entries that go on for pages. It is three mentions without any context. TTN (talk) 23:16, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WP:SIGCOV does not require pages of coverage. But the main facts about the character are covered in abundant detail in the various issues of the comics and so we do not lack for material. On the fine point of notability, we have notice in works of reference too and that's good enough for me. The main point of notability is to spare ourself the effort of writing about something that nobody is interested in. That's clearly not the case here as the article gets a surprisingly large amount of traffic - over 30 hits a day. I've written plenty of real-world topics that don't do nearly so well. The Dog and Duck, for example, only gets a quarter of that traffic. That's a much better article IMO - rich in history and sources. But it doesn't pull in the crowds and we must respect what our readership wants to know, rather seeking to dictate to them. Warden (talk) 23:38, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

the WP:GNG is "significant coverage IN reliable independent sources." the fact that primary sources include the subject in their fulsome story lines is completely irrelevant. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 11:31, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

""Significant coverage" means that sources address the subject directly in detail." I'm done replying. There's just no point anymore. Hopefully the closing admin will take into account that your arguments are counter to policy and guidelines related to fictional topics and notability, and that your arguments would be better served attempting to change the relevant pages rather than as a rational for the inclusion of this article on the encyclopedia. TTN (talk) 23:43, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As I wrote above, if the coverage is enough for a separate article or if it justifies a merging somewhere is a matter of opinion that could be discussed in the proper venue (a merging discussion in the article's talk page). What I am pretty sure is that our readers would not be well served by a bold deletion of the article when there are some alternatives to deletion. Cavarrone 00:00, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BURO -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 16:07, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

transwiki to some fan site. fails WP:GNG. with no significant coverage by independent sources the options for this article within wikipedia are delete, redirect or merge if there is appropriate content and an appropriate target. since there is only primary sources and the target article is already bloated with primary sourced crap, merging seems merely like shoveling the shit from one corner of the stall to the other. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 11:27, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment1 The "real world issue" was originally intended to mean that a fiction should be written about as a fiction that we do not say "Darcy was an English gentleman who lived in the early 19th century", but rather, "In the novel Pride and Prejudice , set in the first decades of the 19th century, the character Darcy is that of an English gentleman". This rather obvious rule was necessary because of the tendency to not make the distinction in naïve book report type articles or articles about elaborate fictional worlds. It caused particular difficulty with historical novels--a little afgter I came here, great deal of disentanglement of fiction and history was necessary for the mostly but not entire historically-based characters in the Romance of the Three Kingdoms. Or as a current example, as if someone tried to use Wolf Hall for the article on Anne Boleyn. Or as another, within not just fan fiction, bur Christopher Tolkien's renditions of his father's works, Middle Earth is treated as a real location, and the various inconsistencies treated as real historical problems.

Whatever you may claim was a previous intention of what the words meant, there is no evidence that the community actually views it in such a narrow scope when they apply it now. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 18:57, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A handful of hostile zealots do not constitute nor speak for the community. Nor do they reflect the way these topics are covered in the real world. I was browsing in a bookshop today and nticed that there were several compendia of fictional characters. Works with titles such as Doctor Who: Character Encyclopedia; DC Comics: The Ultimate Character Guide; Lego Star Wars Character Encyclopedia. Presenting fictional characters in this way is the standard mainstream way of doing it. Trying to keep them out of Wikipedia because you don't like it is blatant censorship. Warden (talk) 21:54, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am glad that you agree that a few zealots should not be speaking for the community nor pushing their idiosyncratic interpretation of policies. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 23:09, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment2 The explanation I gave of "WP articles about fiction should not be entirely plot" is as valid and acceptable interpretation as the one TTN gave . It is logically is better, for TTN's version, which prevents any articles on any fictional subject to be entirely about plot, prevents the writing of WP:Summary Style articles on fiction, because some of them will necessarily be about the plot. There was a debate a few years ago about these wordings, and neither had enough consensus for a guideline. Neither did Masem;'s reasonable suggestion that we distinguish between important and less important works of fiction. Why? because a few people kept insisting on extreme positions in each direction. If guidelines are what we ado here, the best statement of them on this question, is "it varies". It varies primarily on the effort that people put into the argument. There's been a rough balance, for the people on the various sides a have recently been fairly stable, with the extremists largely absent. (The balance the last few years has tended to be on the rather minimal side, because some of the strongest fiction inclusionists were in the past chased away here after they foolishly let themselves get taunted into making blockable errors) TTN has come back to renew an old argument in an attempt to change the balance. In general for WP inclusion policies, stability is good. It's better for everyone to work on articles than engage in this sort of dispute. We can all tolerate a few articles for which we think there's excessive detail, in return for other people tolerating the ones where we ourselves want some detail. The only way to get an encyclopedia that matches what an individual wants is to write it oneself, for from the traditional pattern of editorial control over the writers. DGG ( talk ) 18:20, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What exactly does this have to do with whether or not there are third party reliable sources that discuss Shaper of Worlds in a significant manner? -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 19:02, 20 September 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, — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:35, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into List of Marvel Comics characters: S or Delete, the topic doesn't meet WP:GNG which requires "significant coverage from multiple reliable, secondary independent sources". The article only contains primary and affiliated sources, and the other sources proposed in the discussion are just trivial mentions which don't allow to write an encyclopedic article. The keep !votes clearly have no basis in policy as they deliberately ignore WP:NOTPLOT and WP:WHYN.Folken de Fanel (talk) 12:40, 4 October 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. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:56, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

MyBank[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:NCORP, no independent sources establishing notability. Tgeairn (talk) 19:56, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have added references, give them a review. --VI-007 (talk) 15:02, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 23:51, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 23:51, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I'd argue for a redirect to Summit Bank (which it was merged into two years ago), but that article is even worse, just a one-liner saying 'this is a bank in Pakistan run by Husain Lawai'. Both need major WP:RESCUEs to get to even a weak keep. Nate • (chatter) 02:43, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I disagree on Redirect to Summit Bank. Boeing Bought McDonnell Douglas in 1997 We still have its history, should i mark it for redirection to Boeing? I think for encyclopaedia sake we should improve this article, add more information in and keep it for users. --VI-007 (talk) 22:00, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The big difference is that your example had companies in business for generations. This company was in business for less than six years, and I'm doubtful that Summit Bank is on the level of HSBC, much less even a Regions Bank in their market. Nate • (chatter) 23:35, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I think wikipedia does not care about the age of an organisation, all it care about is "NOTABILITY". Summit Bank is a famous bank in Pakistan where as HSBC has less than 50 branches Pakistan wide, indeed it is a big bank in other countries. --VI-007 (talk) 15:04, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A sixteen-word article suggests that it doesn't have the reach of any national bank, and MyBank seems like a 'jump on that internet gimmick thing bank' that pretty much was acquired solely to get those customers into another small bank. Nate • (chatter) 01:40, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 03:10, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: this article is encyclopedic in nature and should be kept for reference. --Enlightinggemini (talk) 17:18, 21 September 2013 (UTC) This user is a confirmed sockpuppet of Viii007. --SMS ^Talk 12:50, 23 September 2013 (UTC) Comment struck. Michaelzeng7 (talk) 21:45, 24 September 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, — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:34, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

merge with Summit bank, which is usually how we cover predecessor companies. DGG ( talk ) 22:29, 6 October 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. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:57, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Club Loyalty Award[edit]

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

PROD contested by IP, original rationale of "non-notable sporting award" remains valid. A minor award, issued by a newspaper and not any official footballing body, and only given for four years. I cannot see how this meets WP:GNG. Giant Snowman 13:33, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 13:34, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The award is still mentioned a lot and very well known around Russia. Even though the article is not to big, it's a notable and famous Russian award. 2.124.1.23 (talk) 14:09, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You need to demonstrate that using reliable sources. Giant Snowman 14:12, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Just type Приз верность клубу in Google, and you will find a lot of articles mentioning it. The problem is, there is no way to incorporate them into the article, but I can bring you plenty here, even to the extent that in some versions of club histories it was mentioned (and individual award are not always mentioned in general club histories). 2.124.1.23 (talk) 17:59, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What on earth do you mean "there is no way to incorporate them into the article"?! That's the most ridiculous thing I have ever heard. Giant Snowman 18:13, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's not ridiculous, you probably just didn't understand what I said. For example, in various Dynamo Kiev history it's mentioned that Blokhin got the Club Loyalty Award, but how will you incorporate that into the article? Those links don't add anything that the article doesn't already have. 2.124.1.23 (talk) 20:11, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 20:25, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 20:25, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 16:57, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - this 2000 article reports the sixth award of the Club Loyalty Award, but by a different newspaper. As IP 2 says, there seem to be several news reports about an award with this name, but someone needs to clarify whether the award continued or whether these later reports are about something else. It looks to me like the award by Prapor Communizma was discontinued and another newspaper started a similar award in 1995. IN which case the earlier award may be unverifiable. Sionk (talk) 17:18, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's true, and the new award claims to be the successor of the original one, but I'm not sure it generates as much interest. The old one was a big deal in the USSR, it was spoken about by people and it was added to club histories. The new award seems to be just a fading headline in the newspaper (even though sometimes it was awarded at the Kremlin, like the maminov one). I think the new award can be added to the same article, though not easy to find links of all years. It's common in the CIS that an old award was renewed by a different newspaper because the old newspaper doesn't exist anymore or something like that. Footballer of the Year in Baltic and Commonwealth of Independent States (Sport-Express) is a new version of Soviet player of the year, but it's given out by a different newspaper. The one giving out the new award is the "Moscow Railwayworker" paper ([5]). 2.124.14.197 (talk) 10:46, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently the renewed award was officially recognized by the Russian football union, so adding later years to the article.2.124.14.197 (talk) 11:03, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 03:34, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think we kind of discussed it all. The award was very popular during Soviet times, to the extent it was mentioned in club biographies. The reason we can't reference it is because those links will not add new information to the article. We already have a reference Blokhin got it in 1986, do we really need the same thing referenced again from a different source?

After the Soviet Union collapsed the award was renewed, and despite the fact it was not as popular as the original one (maybe because in the new capitalist ear staying in one club is not as respected as in the past), and yet the award was awarded in the Kremlin (which already makes the new version of the award notable). 2.124.14.197 (talk) 20:55, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The more coverage the award got that you can evidence, the stronger your argument for notability gets. Giant Snowman 08:31, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Here is a link about the honours given to Dynamo Kiev and it's players where it's listed: [6]. Here is a link saying a player got given the award at the Kremlin and that it had the endorsement of Russian football union: [7]. Here is an article about Malafeyev who didn't receive the award because it doesn't exist anymore, and still it was mentioned that if it would exist he would get it: [8]. Here is an article about Shakhtar where it was mentioned it's player received the award: [9]. All those links prove it's an award the football community does talk about and remember. 2.124.14.197 (talk) 23:20, 22 September 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, — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:31, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What else do I need to provide to stop this discussion? I was asked to give links to prove the awards notability, which I did by showing it was awarded in the Kremlin, indorsed by the RFU, and that it was mentioned in articles about club history. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.124.14.197 (talk) 21:58, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Question being ignored? PS I don't know why my IP changed. 176.251.55.76 (talk) 18:30, 3 October 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. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:57, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Firmin René Desloge[edit]

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

Genealogical article about a nineteenth century businessman based only on unpublished archival original research (apart from short mentions in The Desloge family in America). At best this should be redirected to Desloge Family in America. It would probably be better to simply delete it, being an unlikely search term. Sionk (talk) 16:54, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Firmin Rene Desloge is among the Missouri French settlement founders. Reference the merits of Firmin Rene Desloge as declared by Jay Gitlin, Yale University professor and director for French American (jay.gitlin at yale.edu) stating that Firmin Rene Desloge was one of those whose "activities of the French are crucial to understanding the phenomenon of westward expansion on a Bourgeois Frontier, characterized as much by family connections, private enterprise and negotiation as by conquest"^[2] and Author and academic Carl Eckberg, professor emeritus at Illinois State University and an expert on the French in colonial America, (cjeckberg at verizon.net) coined the phrase “French Aristocrats at the American West” to describe Firmin Rene Desloge and other prominent French families in Missouri.

Refer also to the information provided by The Missouri History Museum as follows: 'Firmin Rene Desloge is a central character of Missouri history who, through writings situated in France and America, provides an authentic historical narrative built around one family’s 600 letters^[3] dating from 200 years, providing live-action reality present at France & the French Revolution and the American Frontier. Based upon one of the largest bodies of vibrant correspondence written from the turn of the 1800s, we are able to peer into the scene of teeming wildlife and Native American Indians in the young America expanding from this family’s French nobility on the young American frontier..."^[4]

Wikidesloge (talk) 21:33, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 23:25, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 23:26, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, but ... ' there's a problem here. A large number of articles have been added about various members of the family, the family itself as a family, and the business enterprises of various members of the family. They all have their common origin, apparently, in the Missouri History Museum project.. The material in the articles has many duplications and overlaps, and it seems clear to me that not all the articles are justified. There's a more general problem, also. A museum or an individual researcher will sometimes pick one individual or family about whom documentation happens to survive as an example for social or historical changes. The person is often not notable otherwise, but eventually a good deal of history and sometimes literature and films gets written about them. If the works are wll known enough, we often do need an article, because people will see the name and there may be n single suitable redirect. One of the common circumstances of this at WP is pioneers, in Canada, the US , Australia. or NZ. In some cases our rules force the coverage, because some of the relevant national biographies will include otherwise non-notable people as typical examples.

In this case it's a little easier, because he was an important figurein the development of the region. 'DGG (at NYPL) (talk) 19:16, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In this case it's a lit

Seriously? I'm surprised, considering we only have one possible mention in the Jay Gitlin publication (cited above). How isn't this WP article entirely original research? Sionk (talk) 19:50, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The first source listed is a 3rd-party secondary source. Just because it was published over a century ago, does not mean it stops being a secondary source.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:27, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- If you search the digitized book you'll see Firmin Desloge is only listed twice, with no biographical info or claims of importance. Sionk (talk) 23:00, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep He was an important businessman in Missouri.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:30, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 03:35, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Missouri-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:51, 19 September 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, — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:31, 27 September 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 & redirect. Where to is the question, Position (vector) appears to be the most appropriate target from those proposed. KTC (talk) 07:27, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Point vector[edit]

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

This doesn't look notable enough for its own article. Furthermore, there aren't even any references. At the very least it should be redirected and merged into Euclidean vector or deleted. Transcendence (talk) 08:20, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 08:27, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I previously redirected the article to Null vector, which the author reverted. A gsearch provided very little on that term, so my best guess was that the article was simply a WP:CFORK of that article. My !vote would be to restore that redirect, unless anything can be salvaged for a merge (unlikely, seeing as the article is wholly unreferenced, and the article has more than a whiff of WP:MADEUP). Dea db eef 11:29, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am against redirecting it to Null Vector as a point vector implies the vector is one dimensional, not the zero vector. Transcendence (talk) 17:15, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 03:47, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Coordinate vector which is the more usual name for it. A Google search shows that the term is sometimes used, so redirect seems more appropriate than delete. --Mark viking (talk) 21:15, 18 September 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, — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:28, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Position (vector), which seems to explain the same concept far, far better. Coordinate vector is a somewhat different concept. -- 101.119.14.207 (talk) 13:25, 1 October 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. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:58, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Bug Genie[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Google results first five pages are mostly directly related to the product and the only good source for confirming notability is http://www.linuxuser.co.uk/tutorials/debug-fix-software-with-help-from-the-bug-genie . Possibly a case of WP:TOOSOON Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:27, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And after nomination I discovered that it had been deleted before and I suspect that there have been no changes to the article since it was deleted. Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:29, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 03:55, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 03:56, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

delete—not sufficient coverage in reliable sources to meet WP:NSOFT guidelines. Lesser Cartographies (talk) 04:46, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Would article http://www.thegeekstuff.com/2010/08/bug-tracking-system/ help to avoid deletion of this page (that page is one of the top ones when you search for 'open source issue trackers' on Google, for example)? One more page mentioning The Bug Genie would be http://ernieleseberg.com/5-free-software-php-issue-trackers/ That's at least how I ran into it. (just to make it clear - yes, I did open an account on Wikipedia after finding out about possible removal of this article - in case someone raises this as an issue) Baneazaghal (talk) 11:03, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - Welcome to wikipedia, Baneazaghal! Creating an account to have your say here is exactly the right thing to do. I think both of the sources you mentioned are blogs, and that's a no-go as far as establishing notability. I'd like to see the article be improved to the point where we can keep it, and I'd like to work with you to do that (as you know far more about this product than I do). If you know of any publications that discuss Bug Genie—reviews, comparisons, etc.— that's not written by any of the Bug Genie developers and not on a blog, that would be a huge help. If you want the low-level specifications for what we can use, check out WP:RS and WP:NSOFT. If you see anything else that needs improving, please jump right in. Lesser Cartographies (talk) 19:46, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

not delete — The Bug Genie is good tool for project tracking and documentation system. I use it for a while and I think it is a great future ahead. It has exist Drupal connection module: https://drupal.org/project/thebuggenie and hungarian language article for The Bug Genie and phpStorm connection: http://nevergone.hu/hu/blog/130904/bug-genie-feladatkezelo-osszekapcsolasa-phpstorm-taszk-kezelojevel I do not recommend deleting the articles, we try to revamp the proper level. (Sorry for my English bad.) Nevergonehu (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 11:42, 10 September 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, Ymblanter (talk) 07:18, 18 September 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, — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:28, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Notability established by Linux User and Developer article [10], [11] and these other sources: [12], [13], [14]. ~KvnG 21:03, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Seems widespread enough to be notable, per Kvng's links and others. Jackmcbarn (talk) 18:21, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete - the only reliable source that seems to be available is the Linux user article; the rest is blogs and ads. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 14:25, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Multiple independent reliable sources are not available. KvnG's sources don't provide sufficient coverage or are blogs and therefore not reliable.

Whether it's a useful tool or not is not the issue. There are many useful tools that don't meet notability guidelines. Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:36, 4 October 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. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:59, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Minor bus operators in England[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails WP:GNG as there are no reliable secondary sources that discuss this group as a subject. Fails WP:NOTDIR, WP:NOTTRAVEL and seems to be original research. This is no more encyclopedic than a list of small hotels or a list of pharmacies. These all provide a public service but are not of encyclopedic interest. Charles (talk) 20:54, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, Unencyclopedic list that serves no purpose here IMO -

If each company were notable enough they'd have their own article. - Davey2010 T 21:19, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If it's now a policy that not only a list topic must be notable, but that each entry in a list must also meet WP:NOTABLE individually, then perhaps the nominator could refer us to it? Andy Dingley (talk) 21:35, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is a list specifically for non-notable items.--Charles (talk) 14:23, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

keep per previous AfD. Such a list has an obvious definition such that OR is no issue. If bus services in England are considered notable, I see no reason why this obviously relevant list isn't considered as an inevitable component of such coverage. Individual entries are unusually well sourced for such a list. Andy Dingley (talk) 21:33, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The hotel industry in England would be a notable subject but that does not mean we would keep a list of small hotels in England. There is no reason for these non-notable companies to get special treatment just because they run buses.--Charles (talk) 21:28, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:27, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:27, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:28, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:28, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Davey aycliffe^talk 11:16, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The information is not available elsewhere in Wikipedia and I don't see why the article should be deleted just to satisfy some narrow interpretation of the rules. Biscuittin (talk) 15:34, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Not being available elsewhere in Wikipedia is not a reason for keeping it.--Charles (talk) 13:29, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Yes, the page needs work but the list serves to mention all the operators which are not notable enough for their own article. I can see this being directly useful in someone's research - checking if a company exists, getting a list of the firms. There is no proper grounds for deletion. Rcsprinter (banter) @ 10:38, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- How is WP:NOTDIR, a policy formed by community consensus, not "proper grounds" for deletion? Wikipedia is not a reliable source for research purposes.--Charles (talk) 14:03, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - ... it's not acting like a directory! Every time you nominate something saying WP:NOTDIR, I have to tell you this. Rcsprinter (rap) @ 15:12, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- List are useful for identifying missing articles. We have a regional list in List of bus operators of the United Kingdom. The criterion for inclusion here seems to be that they are too small to warrant having a WP article. Is a list of NN subjects worth having? Peterkingiron (talk) 15:27, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WP:CSC specifically contemplates such lists: "Every entry in the list fails the notability criteria. These lists are created explicitly because most or all of the listed items do not warrant independent articles: for example, List of minor characters in Dilbert or List of paracetamol brand names." 24.151.116.25 (talk) 16:07, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 15:59, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Minor" is arbitrary here as it depends on whether an article exists or not, rather than objective criteria. Other types of list contain notable and non-notable entries, such as listed buildings or discographies. It's likely that coverage exists on the topic of bus operators, and companies that are only the subject of brief mentions within that coverage can be included, so I'd say merge to the other lists, but references need improvement - in its current state the list has no sources other than the companies' own sites, and many entries are without references. Coverage of pharmacies, and in some cases hotels, is often limited to directory entries or routine information such as opening times. Peter James (talk) 16:45, 19 September 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, — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:24, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - the "minor" descriptor implies that this is always going to be a list of non-notable things, and as a result, the list is also going to be non-notable. If the majority of items on a list are notable, then the list is valid; in this case, no. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 14:49, 27 September 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. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:59, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nathaniel Britt[edit]

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

Doesn't appear to meet WP:NACTOR. OSborn ^arf_contribs. 04:17, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. OSborn ^arf_contribs. 04:18, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm. Why so? He seems to meet criteria no.1 which states:

Has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions.

Arxquefyga (talk) 08:20, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:46, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

All the parts listed on the page appear to me to be minor parts, not significant roles. He may be a somewhat recurrent actor on some of those shows but I'm not sure that counts at significant roles. OSborn ^arf_contribs. 01:54, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Some of those roles listed are actually significant roles. Arxquefyga (talk) 04:02, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 16:18, 18 September 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, — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:20, 27 September 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. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:59, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Bharti Kumar[edit]

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

Despite obviously failing BLPPROD because the sources are not WP:RS this article has been reviewed and the BLPPROD removed, hence I am flagging it here as a disputed PROD. It has just sufficient notability asserted to avoid speedy deletion, but the featured person is not notable. When they are they may have an article here. Fiddle Faddle 22:29, 8 September 2013 (UTC) Fiddle Faddle 22:29, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 01:20, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 01:20, 9 September 2013 (UTC) Note: Please consider reading WP:INDAFD which includes some points about WikiProject India AFDs. Those may or may not be applicable here. Tito☸Dutta 09:30, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The PROD was put in place just over 10 minutes after the article was created. Creator had improved references prior to my viewing and after reviewing I encouraged the creator to add more information and references, which is still being done gradually. This article needs working on not deleting. Research of the actress will show that she is certainly notable in line with the many other actors/actresses under the India WikiProject. Coverage has big effect on the availability of sources of article's like these so we must give them a chance rather than submitting a PROD while the creator is still making additions. Research on the subject certainly asserts notability and by not taking the standard of global sources in this category into consideration, we are not being supportive of smaller scopes which often create these debates. --- Xenomm (Leave a message!) 01:43, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

To add: I wasn't aware of WP:INDAFD prior to this, however it holds strong merit on cases such as these. The reason I became involved with such articles is mostly because I hold no bias on the subject and I see that such articles are approached by some with negative preconceptions. When I researched this actress in particular I found a facebook fan page with 5000+ followers, and a long list of individuals asserting how they see the actress as notable, which although may not satisfy Wikipedia policies, it certainly assures me of notability. I tagged the article for addition of better sources and also advised the article creator that this should be addressed. I've acted as a reviewer of numerous similar pages, some which I've had speedily deleted and some which I felt simply needed more time to improve. This article in particular was proposed for deletion very soon after it had actually been created, which in my view isn't helpful to Wikipedia as a project and why guidelines promote reviewing from the end of the queue rather than the newest pages. In addition the creator is still working with us to improve the article and has taken all advice into consideration. Common sense dictates to me that articles like this need researching further before submission of a PROD. Contrary to the view of the AfD submitter, the subject is definitely notable, we just need to allow time for it to be further sourced, so that we're not treating India WikiProject articles unfairly. --- Xenomm (Leave a message!) 16:19, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: With good narration of the history of the article, the nominator seems to have forgotten to mention why exactly he/she thinks the subject to be "not notable". Your nomination is just a "blah and blah and delete it". Can you enlighten us more? Also, please help me understand how http://www.tellychakkar.com/ is not a RS. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 18:04, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, I certainly find the conduct of the nominator, slapping a PROD on the article mere minutes after creation, to be really unhelpful. How about we try to help out new editors rather than taking them straight to the deletion process? Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 01:23, 15 September 2013 (UTC).[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 16:21, 18 September 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, — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:18, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as no policy based reason for deletion was ever given, the BLPPROD mentioned was invalid, and this actress appears to be notable anyway. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 15:02, 27 September 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. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:00, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Fan Boy[edit]

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

This character does not establish notability independent of X-Statix through the inclusion of real world information from reliable, third party sources. Most of the information is made up of plot details better suited to Wikia. There is no current assertion for future improvement of the article, so extended coverage is unnecessary. TTN (talk) 10:27, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 11:21, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 11:21, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 11:21, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge into List of Marvel Comics characters: F. BOZ (talk) 13:48, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable. A redirect or merge would also be acceptable, but I don't see much point. Is anyone going to search for this? A link to the appropriate list could just as easily be added as a disambiguation to Fanboy (disambiguation). NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 01:41, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 16:32, 18 September 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, — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:08, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per NinjaRobotPirate.Folken de Fanel (talk) 12:31, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Wrong venue - RFD or RM is more appropriate. Wrong venue - RFD or RM is more appropriate (non-admin closure) ES &L 11:09, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ken Griffey[edit]

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

I'm not quite sure AfD is the right venue here, but RM and RfD aren't quite right either. I propose Ken Griffey, Jr. is the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC for Ken Griffey and that, like with Cal Ripken, the base name should redirect to the more famous Jr. with a hatnote to the Sr. This makes the dab unnecessary per WP:TWODABS, hence I'm asking that it be deleted. Ok, well, really just redirected. Last month, Jr. had over 70,000 views, compared to just 14,000 for his father. Jr. also dominates results for "ken griffey" -wikipedia, as well as those in Google Books. --BDD (talk) 16:24, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. --BDD (talk) 16:26, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect I agree with the nominator's argument, particularly given precedent in the article on Cal Ripken. I don't think it's quite as clear-cut as it is with the Ripkens -- Griffey Sr. was a fairly prominent player, whereas Ripken Sr. was a manager -- but Junior is definitely the primary topic in both cases, and the nominator supplies good evidence to support that. So, yes, redirect to Ken Griffey, Jr.. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 16:54, 9 September 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, KTC (talk) 19:17, 18 September 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, — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:04, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - This is the wrong venue for this. Carrite (talk) 22:14, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The only other formal venue I could think of is RfD, if I did the redirecting myself and then basically asked to have the decision endorsed. I suppose that's one way I could've done it. I just thought this might be controversial (maybe not) and should be discussed. --BDD (talk) 22:32, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Redirect to List of Super Famicom games (S–Z). Hut 8.5 19:43, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Spark World[edit]

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

There is no evidence that this game satisfies Wikipedia's notability guidelines. None of the references is much more than a game listing, credit list, or other similar minimal coverage. Google searches also fail to provide evidence of notability: for example, a search for "Spark World" Famicom produced Wikipedia, YouTube, ebay and other sites selling the game, and a few fan sites, most of which gave only bare listing information. None of the pages I found contained any sort of substantial coverage. (A PROD was removed without any explanation by an IP editor with no edits elsewhere.) JamesBWatson (talk) 12:16, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect. It's plausible that there are sources available in Japanese-language print media, but there's sure nothing promising online. I'd happily reconsider if someone could scare something up of that nature, but otherwise, this should point at List of Super Famicom games (S–Z), where the game is listed. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 14:11, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 18:09, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:09, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:09, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of Super Famicom games (S–Z). Game does not appear to be notable. --Odie5533 (talk) 13:28, 29 September 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. JohnCD (talk) 16:16, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dennis Donaghy[edit]

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

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

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

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

Vanity autobiography of a short time member of two margionally notable (at best) bands. This article self serving deceptively sourced puff piece. While musicians may be notable from being a member of two notable bands he was only a short time member. (And is Blanket Statementstein really notable? If that gets deleted we are left with one.) Sources that actually mention him only mention his name and instrument. Nothing to build a BLP with. A few mentions of his name does not justify this self serving deceptively sourced puff piece. duffbeerforme (talk) 11:41, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

STRONG DELETE (added by Phaedrx) Phaedrx (talk) 02:37, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Duff thx for the afd and tags i hope this gets resolved anyway any u guys read this looks like I was welcomed in pretty definitively as a DD page goes: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Phaedrx#See_Archive_A thanks again, but please be fair this is the 3rd or 4th afd already, I havent touched the page save for two uncontroversial edits since it was 'revented' as I say by user REVENT, well after all the Archive A stuff but forget it right cuz its the subj? try reading Archive A Duff, Pinky, everyone who thinks they care or know whats up with this DD 'Vanity' page. really? some vanity... not one cent , not one promotional email or spam to anyone anywhere, extremely low traffic for a wikipedia page... I have nothing much to promote save for my wiki-ing skills (uhh getting better) and a rather reliable live performance clip validating my guitar playing and singing (official artist Youtube page live performance Eleusion Temple produced especially for youtube although its not grammy award winning its me as is it's phaedrx so to speak. and no one is asking me for the many other details which havent even gotten mentioned or discussed due to I didnt care all that much but if the afd is going ahead cant i bring up more notability defining stuff in my own defense? I understand if I feel which I sort of do that I am being harrassed I am a living BLP subject and can complain about Duff and Pink's treatment or what I feel is f'ed up about their fascist witchhunt I mean participation in this free society dare I actually engender that 'Forcing S**t about S**t Without Knowing S**T About It, But Only Because I Feel Like It' which I so detest and runs contrary to the spirit I have found otherwise in Wikpedia!. thanks and LONG LIVE WIKI WIKI WIKIPEDIA PEDIA PEDIA!!! with or without me and hey I'm no Bono so don't think I tried to Vanitarily Promote Myself Unambiguously Here (injoke for us wikipedian burbas or higher) MAYBE that was harsh in spots but Duff you forgot to write a big bold even red or bright yellow or something DELETE !!! Phaedrx (talk) 01:03, 29 September 2013 (UTC)) dUH, sorry pls dont skool me for that, I figure if you make the afd thats yer vote hah! but they need to count em so put it up in BOLD is my suggestion. Thanks Phaedrx (talk) 01:51, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, but maybe don't listen to me. I have always felt notability was pretty marginal here; the WP:MUSIC guidelines are just that, guidelines, and as User:Duffbeerforme says, one of those two bands is pretty marginal itself. It also has a serious problem inasmuch as it's basically all been written by the subject (because the subject is not notable enough for anyone else to care).

... but, I have become very frustrated with the subject's COI editing, and perhaps am not in a position to take a neutral view on deletion. Pinkbeast (talk) 14:59, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

be fair please. The 2 count em two dd page edits that phaedrx did over the last five months thats like 20 weeks, 140 days, thats one helpful noncontroversial edit per 70 days on the DD page, and lots more on lots of other pages per 70 days). Meaning after Revent (who i have no relation to other than being co wiki volunteers) combed over the page alone, the 2 post revent edits were as follows: I am a member of a non controversial society (TNS) and when mr MacKay told me on the phone he switched TV stations, that was the day in July I think I changed the dd page. So i touched 'my' ( i know its really ours pink not mine, but ours pink means me in there too just like you or anyone reading this!) so I touched (actually IMPROVED) the dd page twice in like four months. After it was neutrally purged by a non related wiki person quite adequate for the task (Revent). And this was like in June!!! People. Get over ur selves. Meaning revent neutralized it and those two are not very strongly COI as far as edits. Last thing pinky baby loosen up why not even offer friendly help? Get the page out of wiki, ill still be around helping out you can't push me out that way any more than anyone in the Triple Nine Society can invalidate my official 165 and 146 IQ scores. Peace Phaedrx (talk) 23:34, 28 September 2013 (UTC) ( no socking I'm a stickler too all... I hit the four squiggles but my iPhone shit down on low batt and when I turned it back on I forgot to log in all you sticklers remember what I say I myself am one so stop sticklering a stickler! Kidding since if I am one I am in favor you being one. Just take it easy. Phaedrx (talk) 23:34, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It could do with better sourcing and maybe less on his current solo work, but he does seem to have been a member of multiple ensembles that received enough ink to be notable, which makes him meet one of the WP:MUSIC criteria for notability. We don't forbid subjects from writing their own articles and on balance it's good to have the bare minimum biographic details - birthplace, education - that are otherwise hard to source in many BLPs. In other words I don't see it as too terribly puffy. Yngvadottir (talk) 15:06, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nevada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:06, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:06, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"I can't vote but I can contribute/comment" hi all my name is Dennis I am not here to fight or glorify myself despite what you might be convinced of. All I ask is open your mind and be fair. For the record I love Wikipedia I created about three pages entirely myself (button king and golden eagle regional park) and lots more hopefully significant or helpful edits etc. that aside, please also keep in mind the whole entire reason I drafted a page, by the rules though bending them maybe into that everpresent grey area for y'all to push back so to speak (that's 'Bold-revert or just BOLD' I believe). There's a diff BW that and being unambiguously self promotional. I was careful then it was plowed through once and can be done do again and agaib of course whether or not I care. But I don't. I encourage it thats how this works and remember this if you need balance: I only created the damn thing when I was told (look it all up that's what's great about the NSA oops I meant Wikipedia everything gets stored) anyway I only made the damn thing when I was told I couldn't remove my name for the BSS page. Let me repeat the page only came about AFTER (pls see bss afd page for wikimembers resolving or at least addressing this very 'notability' question the only true 'no-no' being alleged yes?) )when i get to a pc i can link it or cut paste necc stuff faster or someones assistance woild help to link that one here as the cases and some important details overlap. ONLY AFTER I asked to come off the Wikipedia on April 14th was it? (reasoning being I had no online presence Facebook, no Twitter, none of that. No online presence before April 2013. I was a counterterrorism editor and almost in the FBI NSB...check out the phony Alaskans are googling me Dennis Donaghy bs blogger page I tried to trhow ppl off with that haha, it shows I was trying to eliminate my public online presence back in April '13 when the PHAEDRX/SEE ARCHIVE A contents were being saved to wikiland) And a private citizen/special Ed teacher. If youre a teacher u try to ensure a fair or balanced online presence- balancing privacy with public presence as a teacher, and trying to be fair to all parties as a role model to the kids you teach) I have never toured with a band. I was never on very famous things but decide fairly is all I'd say is remember Phaedrx himself said please take me off of the BSS page, then since i was 'outed' as a former BSS drummer I wanted to set the record straight without any need to lie. In fact there's more notability or 'KEEP' supporting stuff I can bring up here or in the help chat that may end up I this page, I just don't know every guideline. But it's not Carnegie hall or letterman or anything; c'mon guys I know I was not a fulltime pro musician (very tough to try) and thats why i rounddd it out in the personal life section plus characterizing myself, correctly i believe as a music outsider or an 'outsider' musician. That i definitely am anyone who knows me would say so. and finally remember I worked fairly hard on this DD phaedrx page and not making a red cent in anyway musically lately or ever really so no profiteering here, i can assure you anx uhhh my wife can assure you no other nonmonetary uhhh musician benefits are being reaped by this page nor my outsider music (yet?) but i earned my notsbility was the point of all that I am not earning a cent in music now and I did my life events that reflect permanent wiki notability as currently fixed actually of course fixed before wiki ever got me here . plus but more so on the Wikipedia itself and finally that I myself have already AFD'd the DD phaedrx page twice this is the fourth of third Afd. Thanks all rock on Pheadrx I m a nice person if u get to know me but if u feel delete say it but say why and allow a response thanks for letting me ramble. Phaedrx (talk) 22:13, 28 September 2013 (UTC) ps sorry one last thing if anyone wants to help a couple old friends on their pages. These dudes are much better known than me and have pages maybe someone can put it together nicer instead of cracking down I mean go for it if u think that's right but also someone maybe take a look at the Carl Restivo (self created, not molested/you know what I mean, neutralized independently like mine was by revent or you meaning anybody except me (subj) if you're up to it!) or Martin Perna (self created, unharrassed/not much editing assistance) two very notable famous dudes who also made significant contributions on their own pages. It's not any more vanity just because the person is less notable. Also Daptone, Bosco Mann. And look at Yishai Romanoff, pesach Alpert associated with BsS equivalent or lower reference quality than DD/Phaedrx. From whenever I first read a Wikipedia page to April '13 I was nothing but a avaricious reader of Wikipedia. Now when there's a story in the news I am familiar with it have specislized experience in, I log on and try to bump myself up from burba but that's just me. I think afd roman emperor thumb up or down I will be here helping you guys. Phaedrx (talk) 22:28, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The subject has been in marginally notable bands for short periods of time, and has received little to no mainstream press coverage for his efforts.

Page creation: The page was created by apparently inactive User:9fu3hn9u in a series of edits after which User:Phaedrx who self-describes as "Dennis Donaghy" on his user page took over and made little fixes and tweaks to the page. User:9fu3hn9u never reappears in the edit history after User:Phaedrx appears. This is not in itself any grounds for AFD, merely an observation. My former experiences on Wikipedia with this editing pattern have always previously been puppets.
Notability: If the subject had true notability, this discussion would never even come up; as it is, I vote to Delete the page due to marginal or no notability. Members of far more famous old bands do not even have their own pages (e.g. | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elaine_%22Spanky%22_McFarlane which while it is url-named after "Elaine Spanky McFarlane" was renamed "Spanky and Our Gang" to include the entire group. I really feel that Dennis D. isn't anywhere near the league of Spanky and our Gang, he was not the leader of any groups and while he played with other groups which may have achieved some marginal notability later, I really don't see that rubbing off backwards on one former band member. I searched Google books, news and blogs and found only self-published mentions; Google Scholar returned nothing on the subject.
Potential conflict of interest: Looking at the history page, it would appear that Phaedrx spends a lot of time on page tweaking this entry. There are two schools of thought on this, one that editing oneself is always WP:COI and the other that it isn't. Since it says on the COI page "This page in a nutshell: Do not edit Wikipedia to promote your own interests, or those of other individuals or of organizations, including employers. Do not write about these things unless you are certain that a neutral editor would agree that your edits improve Wikipedia.", I adhere to the former (do not edit your own page) as a simple policy removes even the appearance of conflict-of-interest. I agree with User:Phaedrx that few of his edits have major substance, however, they do contain poor citations and WP:POV statements leading to WP:COI issues. While COI is not sufficient by itself for AFD, it is part of the situation.
Problems with the article other than the above: Beyond the subject's lack of notability, the citations and information supposedly confirmed by the citations in the article are a jumbled mess. His name doesn't even appear in citation #1, instead they say a "Dennis D." was in the band. Now 'scuse me, but there's about "About 178,000,000 results (0.42 seconds)" for "Dennis D." in Google, I don't think that citation #1 should be used to confirm anything. That problem continues throughout the citations. Information is cited, but the information doesn't appear in the article/webpage. The quality level of some of the cited pages is poor. There are no secondary sources such as books about the subject. None of the "big-name" newspaper/magazine articles cited mentions the subject by name, they are about the bands he used to be in and of which he no longer is on the roster. I searched both New York Times articles and Seattle Times stories for "Dennis" and didn't even find his first name! I would thus say that the band he used to be in has achieved notability, deserves their own page and he could be mentioned on that page under the heading "Former band members." I think the citations at present do not support the alleged notability of the subject and I am unable - after searched Google Books, Blogs, News and Scholar - to find any which do.

Thus I agree with the nomination for deletion for this page. I arrived at this AFD discussion by invitation from User:Phaedrx whom I never met before. My comments have no personal bias as I have no relationship or interest in the subject, have never edited on his page and never heard of him or any of the bands he was in before tonight. I also left him a message on his talk page. Ellin Beltz (talk) 04:06, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

*PHAEDRX REBUT TO ELLIN* Wow did not expect that. Kinda sorry I asked a person who knew absolutely nothing about this very complicated case to vote. Note to self, backfire! haha. You guys are still confused but the best points made so far Ellin! The errors I refer to are: YES, I wrote the page. FIRST OF ALL The sock thing, issue....

1) *Page creation:* Ellin: its all in the archive. It's actually in the THIRD SENTENCE on my user page (sitting there ever since I created the Phaedrx account with Yngvadottir's help as before that I didn't know about socking, wasnt trying to sock, and had already explained this 'sockpuppet-looking' behavior. I can see how I was accused of trying to sock but I wasnt I remember what happened plus I wrote about it back in April. I can go thru it again but no on seems to care what I say. Now also, I declared that 'sock' to be me and no longer in use. Why Ellin who knows nothing can come in and confuse ppl more is not the best thing for this community. Just becuase i am the subj doesnt mean I dont know lots of good info in this 'case'. HAVE I BEEN DECEPTIVE OR made bad edits since joining this place? No, quite the opposite, but why Ellin wants to can my page,I believe you are off-base. but this dont look good as I say. Oh well...but lemme just say again, BE FAIR, and realize After a third-party User named "Revent" neutralized the Dennis Donaghy page was back in April or May, I only touched the DD page twice (2 times) to fix it up. nO ONE IS ASSESSING THE QUALITY OF THOSE TWO EDITS CUZ THEY SUPPORT MY CASE AND THEY'RE GOOD EDITS. So no, I do nOt "regularly" EDIT MY OWN PAGE. i DONT EVEN regularly edit Wikipedia, only when I can and want to. and when I did edit 'my' page (actually Revent's version of the page about me) the two times (that's 2) it was ONLY to improve it not make me look better.

2) *Notability* - This was established in the record already, not sure if you saw it. I have many chat room screenshots and talk page postings showing me my irreversible notability! This is weird. I was told I was unequivocally notable several times by several people here. Nobody here do I have any personal relationship or connection to. This is only confusing now as I respect Ellin's logic to rid of me as well in some ways. PS NOBODY is responding to me when I say I have more Notability establishing stuff. If you delete me you'd better look at the other BSS drummers with their own pages mine is better sourced than theirs #2b) I like yr logic but its not major media appearances that determine notability it's BEING IN TWO NOTABLE BANDS DUDE! Think about it- Spank Our Gang, not a good WAY TO KNOCK dENNIS dOAGHY OUT OF THE wIKIPEDIA. Spanky was NOT in TWO NOTABLE BANDS! I was though, but Ellin's clout looks too strong to surmount here and I WILL NEVER SNOWBALL even my own page (see my failed Quantonics page's speedy delete that was one of my first (failed assignments)

3) *the COI thing* Uhh, I feel like there's an echo and a cricket chiirping... This Revent person neutralized it as far as I was told, but if it needs more neutralizing that's one thing- in which case AFDing it is probably extreme, but hey its me as subject so I'm in a tough spot here... Remember it's not a "COI" conflict IF the edit is noncontroversial.... The 2 count em two post-Revent Dennis Donaghy page edits by phaedrx are the TNS society membership (not too controversial but again, NO ONE HAS ADDRESSED THIS FACT in my defense) and the other was when I spoke to Frank MacKay on the phone he said they changed TV channels so I changed it after verifying it in the open source that very day I spoke with him in July. So I don't edit my own page all the time despite everyone seeming to think so..

4) *Problems other than above*: Beyond being clearly told several times in chat rooms and on talk pages (screenshots available), that, "sorry, you have been irreversibly * Established as Notable* " ( I can provide these screenshots and the relevant wiki archival text if you dont believe e and I dont expect belief from you, nor even addressing this from anyone out there, cuz no one addresses my points, but I am writing it anyway....;) Several times this year by several independent unrelated ppl here at wiki weirdland, I was told ;'forget it you're notable' 'they can never undo your notability'... I have those screens. I guess they were wrong but I built a whole online thing if this gets deleted I will have to undo all that which I was anonymous online from 2007 and earlier to April 2013 when I saw BSSBFTUK WITH SWEDISH DESIGN in the wikipedia and on the new york times. I asked to come off their page, they said no. (i feel like a f-ing idiot repeating this so much) SO I made the DD page when I was told I was unable to remove my name from the BSS page. And Revent and Yngvadottir and ChrisGualtieri and Huon and others helped me.

So, beyond being Actually Notable (or told many times clearly that that is the case) (BTW, I said it already, no one listened, why do I even do this? HEY GUYS!!! there IS more to establish me as a musician, as DBA's first drummer on record (WITH FULL LAST NAME ELLIN) besides the Dennis "D" thing, the D thing happened when I was being ANONYMOUS, as I have repeatedly said, YOU CAN ASK ADAM RABUCK I made him put D instead of Donaghy (I have other sources that show Donaghy) And I have the original blue vinyl record that has me on it...this is getting absurd. So I was almost in the FBI and when this was happening I intentioanlly had zero online presence (no facebook, no twitter no anything) until the whole BSSBFTUK WITH SWEDISH DESIGN drumming thing where I ASKED TO COME OFF the wikipedia for privacy AND THEY SAID NO!! Jeez. So knock me out then...but I don't think Ellin who clearly knows nothing about musician notability guideline 5 or 6 b or whatever the 2 notable bands thing... Man. Ask Someone for help and they ream you good. I AM Not and never will be a SNOWBALLER & I will probably not be in the wikipedia for too much longer! So unless Ellin decides to change or remove the delete vote and no one else favors keep, Congrats DuffBeerForMe & Pinkbeast you win you clever wiki-ppl yous. Thx for allowing me a say here. Phaedrx (talk) 09:15, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is the funniest sh*t ever: Ellin, check my phaedrx.com page, hope yr not offended but even if you are I AM pheadrx and its staying there until I say so. Why? You involved yerself and cluelessly slashed away at my life, my work and me. NOWHERE NEAR SPANKY !!!! Thats the best line I have ever heard - hey you're no spanky!!!! ps spanky wasnt in DBA, BSS, Severna Park, or White Shabbos, or Blanket Statementstein. Spakny wasnt even a musician. Musicians have spearate guidelines from whatever spanky was, child star actor or whatever. HOW DO YOU COMPARE ME TO SPANKY !!! WTF??!?! Phaedrx (talk) 10:57, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Phaedrx&oldid=574949817 is the last version of User:Phaedrx's userpage with a list of admitted socks. Personally, it seems plausible to me that these were a simple misunderstanding of the account creation rules. Pinkbeast (talk) 00:19, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You are apparently confusing Elaine "Spanky" McFarland with a male child actor from the 1940s. Instead, as you would have learned had you followed the link above, she headed her own group "Spanky and Our Gang" as well as singing the Mama Cass position for years with the The Mamas & the Papas in their revivals after Ms. Cass' death. Therefore she is notable, but not considered notable enough for her own page, which is why her page redirects to "Spanky and Our Gang." I used her as an example of an musical artist with multiple groups and multiple records who is still not considered notable enough to have her own page.

Calling people names here and on your own website[15]] doesn't help your position in this discussion; it diminishes you in the opinion of others - who like myself - had never met or encountered you before. It was you who asked me to contribute, anyone reading my prior entries in AFD would have known what my reply would be. Ellin Beltz (talk) 20:00, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nom. Notability doesn't appear to be established via WP:RELIABLE. Epic COI. JNW (talk) 12:16, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - There is nothing here that supports standalone notability. Quite simply WP:VRS is not being met, never mind WP:MUSICBIO. Walls of text from the subject are not helping either. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 20:28, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Non-notable. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:06, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Non-notable crap!. Davey2010Talk 23:47, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

DD's site: "even crap (thanks 'DAVEY 2010' my life's work is crap" - You're more than welcome, and yes.... yes it is! ...-Davey2010Talk13:13, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - for the article to exist, as FreeRangeFrog indicates above, the subject needs to have specific notability as an individual, and the sources used to not so far as I can see establish the required individual notability. John Carter (talk) 00:57, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails Musicbio. Vanitybio for an unremarkable musician 78.105.23.161 (talk) 02:25, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The sources only seem to discuss Dennis Donaghy, a former general manager and director of Cairns Taipans, an Australian men's professional basketball team. The Seattle Times and The New Yorker references listed in the article[16] do not mention Dennis Donaghy. There is not enough coverage in reliable sources that are independent of Dennis Donaghy for the Dennis Donaghy topic to be handled as a separate, stand-alone biography page. See WP:GNG and subject-specific guidelines. -- Jreferee (talk) 04:01, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete does not appear to pass our music guidelines and seems to have COI/self-promotion problems. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 04:55, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom. Notability for unremarkable musician not established. -AuthorAuthor (talk) 20:31, 30 September 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. JohnCD (talk) 16:25, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ramaz Abesadze[edit]

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

Page concerns a Georgian academic. Previously nominated for speedy and prodded, but retained both times. One editor suggested AfD which is why I have brought it here. The article as it stands is no more than a directory entry and there is no indication that this person is properly notable. A Google search (admittedly, in English) brings up Facebook and the like and the link provided in the article, which is to the institution in which he works and which does mention him a few times, but again, to my untrained eye, without demonstrating sufficient notability. I confess freely that I am not in a position to have expert knowledge on the notability or otherwsie of Georgian academics, but I hope others are. Emeraude (talk) 09:32, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Georgia (country)-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:27, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:27, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:27, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Tiny cites in GS. No evidence of notability. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:30, 27 September 2013 (UTC).[reply]
Delete as per Emeraude. No evidence of notability.
--Inlandmamba _{(fruitful thought)} 17:35, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Fails WP:Academic by far.Truth or consequences-2 (talk) 13:45, 5 October 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. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:02, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Barmati Panth[edit]

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

Can't find sources establishing any notability according to our guidelines. This book, page 213, mentions a student writing a manuscript on it. on it on page Dougweller (talk) 08:50, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

~~Comment~~ Change to Keep on the strength of sources establishing notability. Most sources are likely not to be in English. It appears that the chapter at p67 of the book by Boivin is devoted to the topic, but I do not have a copy. There is plenty of evidence that the religion exists, even if the actual content of the article cannot be verified, and we do not delete purely because of lack of sources. It is very difficult to challenge religions claiming a thousand year tradition on notability grounds, because past notability, and notability in other cultures and languages, all count. ~~On the face of it a 'keep', but I am happy to defer to those with expert knowledge.~~ --AJHingston (talk) 09:34, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Thanks. Spelling is sometimes 'panthi'. I found this [17] which says it was "Founded by Shree Dhani Matang Dev". Ok, we have Dhani Matang Dev, Mamaidev and maybe related articles referring to these people as historical figures but we also can find [18] and [19] which refers to these people as legendary. Dougweller (talk) 10:06, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I know from experience that we are in difficulties not least because of language (there will be different transliterations and it is difficult for non-experts to know whether they are referring to the same or different things), because most sources will not be on the internet, and because one needs to be familiar with context (I am not sure whether what is being described is a separate religion in the sense we normally understand it or more properly a sect or religious tradition). 'Holy men' in south Asia are often described in the manner of Christian saints in medieval hagiographies, and the separation of the historical figure from the pious tradition has often not been done in accessible RS. That would not mean, of course, that they do not have a place here - the real problem would be if they turned out to be an invention of a newly created sect who had created an entire history for themselves, but the evidence does not point that way. --AJHingston (talk) 11:07, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per this reference, which says "The Barmati Panthis - who often prefer to be called Maheshwaris because of their devotion to God Siv-today form a Hindu sect affiliated to the vast movement of Santism specific to Saurashtra and Kutch." etc. The subject is genuine and noteworthy. I'll work on the article this weekend to try to get it to at least a decent stub stage. Abecedare (talk) 14:07, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:23, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:23, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Withdraw nomination Concerns met, thanks everyone. Dougweller (talk) 13:28, 6 October 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. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:03, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Los Santos, San Andreas[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Article about a fictional city in a computer game. See Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Vice_City for an AfD for four other articles about fictional cities in the same game (GTA). Articles of this kind would be appropriate on a fan-Wiki, but not here. A previous AfD resulted in a redirect to San_Andreas (Grand Theft Auto)#Los_Santos, but the article has been recreated. Thomas.W ^{talk to me} 08:47, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into List of places in the Grand Theft Auto series with all the other cities. --Joshua Issac (talk) 09:21, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Changing to keep, as the number and quality of reliable sources focusing on the city that are now in the article establishes notability per the general notability guideline to warrant an independent article. --Joshua Issac (talk) 11:46, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 17:12, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:13, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The claim that we should delete this simply because it's related to a computer game is absurd. GTA5 had a budget of $265M — which is more than most major movies — and so clearly a lot of artistic work went into it. It has been receiving massive coverage in mainstream media such as the article I was reading, just this morning, about photography within this virtual city — Gamers group together to take stunning images in Grand Theft Auto V. The nomination seems to be a case of WP:IDONTLIKEIT contrary to WP:CENSOR and WP:NPOV. Warden (talk) 22:42, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to GTA V. ~~Delete~~ ~~with the same rationale as Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Vice_City~~ - the actual reliable sources that describe these game worlds can all fit in the respective parent articles, so a WP:SPLIT isn't warranted; at best merge the few reliable sources into the parent articles. ~~This is gamecruft that parent article don't want and~~ proper writing about fiction wouldn't need a whole article for each zone split from the game. News hype of screenshots is not in-depth reception required for independently notable articles. I would support a list of GTA places if it is sourced and written from real-world encyclopedic perspective. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 12:07, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Changing to merge in light of quality sources now added that support material beyond original research. Only a couple sources are focused on the location itself though, not something that would pass independent notability with WP:GNG in-depth mark. They mostly talk about the game and game primarily, with the map being an additional subject and news headline. So this still does not warrant a WP:SPLIT from the game article, as all this material can be covered there. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 11:09, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merger is not achieved by deletion - see WP:MAD. Mainstream news coverage demonstrates independent external interest in the topic. Internal cries of "gamecruft" are just personal opinions contrary to WP:NPOV. Warden (talk) 12:17, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't say "merge and delete", I said "delete or at best merge". — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 12:39, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

HELLKNOWZ, when Vice City was being considered for deletion, it was being considered for deletion because it didn’t have any real life information linked to the city such as 'reception' towards the city. The Los Santos page however has how people responded towards the city and it should be kept and not deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 101.160.15.99 (talk) 10:29, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge per prior AFD. BOZ (talk) 16:41, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Prior AfD was redirected, which is neither "keep" nor "merge". — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 17:47, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep No, I would not have not created the article yet if this was my call, but it is a bit early in the news cycle on the release of GTAV to know if there's potentially more to the fictional city than I've seen from the other games that falls outside the type easter eggs/interesting landmarks that these fictional cities certainly have. While I've yet to play the game there's definitely some sourcing that suggests possible notability of the setting that is more than gamecruft. I would recommended keeping this but to review the article and state of the sources within a few months (after enough time for sources to settle down) to determine if there's really anything notable about the city (per the nom's aforementioned AFDs for other GTA settings). If anything, a merge/redirect (without deletion) is reasonable. --MASEM (t) 18:29, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The city appears to be notable by itself, as an object of commentary and discussion. The New Yorker ran an entire piece just about the city. HuffPo also discusses the city, Slate discusses life in the city, as does The Independent as I'm sure others do as well. --Odie5533 (talk) 13:34, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to the parent article. While there may be enough sources to "establish" notability for the topic, it should be placed into the main article until is reasonable to split it out should it take up too much space. Allowing it to stay in its current state is just going to attract listcruft in various forms, so having a full-fledged article ready to go in the case a split becomes warranted would keep that from happening. TTN (talk) 13:42, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There is no single parent article. There are already over 50 articles in this family. Some of these such as Grand Theft Auto (series) are large already and so merger would be contrary to WP:SIZE. Warden (talk) 14:00, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The main redirect can be to Grand Theft Auto (series)#Setting, and the relevant info can be kept in GTA5 unless it needs to be split. TTN (talk) 14:09, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That page is 96K which is too big. It would therefore be wrong to merge more content into a page which "probably needs splitting". Warden (talk) 15:54, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I just said that the redirect will point there, and that the information will stay in GTA5 where it currently fits. If the info in GTA5 is too heavy for that article, then an article should be created. TTN (talk) 16:12, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

We already have an article — this one. Your proposition is absurd. Warden (talk) 16:15, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No, we have an undeveloped stub with unknown potential that at present would only be copying information from the GTA5 article. Redirecting and properly splitting the article out after it has proven to be too burdensome on the main topic (and only if) is much more proper, as it should have been done in the first place. TTN (talk) 16:25, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Some editors work top-down. Others work bottom-up. Others work on stitching the pieces together. We already have 50+ articles in the GTA family and the number is bound to grow as the game itself develops - the online version opened just today, I read. AFD has no mandate to direct or disrupt this editorial activity which will only be complete when the whole series is obsolete and consigned to history. That seems to be many years in the future. Warden (talk) 19:48, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep for now. This article is already off to a better start than the other AfD's. I'd give the editors a couple of weeks to expand the article; a Development section has been started and could use Grand Theft Auto V#Setting as a good starting point. If the article can grow this section and a reviews section, and keep the cruft out, there's a chance it could be a decent article. CR4ZE (t) 04:45, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Lets face it once a computer game location gets a complete article in the new Yorker its going to be notable. The worryingly long article in eurogamer about people mapping the place is further evidence. Heh this is a location that has appeared in two of the most popular games ever that also appear in the series that is known for people ignoring the missions just to look around. Its notable live with it. Not that you actually have a choice given the lively influence its having on the next generation of architects.Geni (talk) 19:24, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Merge to World of Eberron. There's a wide range of suggested outcomes here, but that seems to be the one with the fewest objections. Hut 8.5 14:50, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dragonmarked house[edit]

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

This does not establish notability independent of Eberron through the inclusion of real world information from reliable, third party sources. Most of the information is made up of overly in-depth plot details better suited to Wikia. There is no current assertion for future improvement of the article, so extended coverage is unnecessary. TTN (talk) 04:16, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 04:26, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 04:26, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to ~~Eberron~~ World of Eberron. This has some small potential to be notable, thanks to the popularity of the Eberron campaign setting (and DDO), but I don't see any reliable sources in my searches. I suggest it be redirected to the campaign setting, and if someone can demonstrate notability, it can be recreated. Merge is also possible, but I don't really see the point in trying to move any of this in-universe writing to the main article. It would just get tagged as original research, unsourced, and/or deleted. Still, if people want to try merging it in, I'm not against that. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 08:01, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
transwiki to some gamer site that would love this cruft. as it is solely sourced to primary non independent sources, per WP:GNG the article itself will need to be deleted, merged (if there is any appropriate content and target article - although with only primary sources, there is probably not much worthy of merging) or turned into a redirect. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 13:38, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge to World of Eberron. BOZ (talk) 15:28, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
merge or keep I can't myself determine if it's significant enough for a separate article, but it should certainly not be deleted. Asking for deletion is saying that we should not even have a cross-reference, that someone who comes here and looks for it will find nothing. Has the nom any reason to say that such is appropriate? If there's no reason gainst redirection, we shouldn;t be asking for deletion. Asking for real wold details is relevant only if wee are discussing the WP coverage of the entire work (or, in this case, group of works. When a fictional universe is so complicated or important or has so many different manifestations, that w need to divide up the coverage (as we certainly do for this one), then the individual parts of it will some of them necessarily be about only the in-universe portions. Otherwise, it's like asking that a subarticle on someone's Scientific work doesn't talk about his Life--in a split article, that's inevitable. If one really thinks this way, we can solve it by rtaining all the content and merging it into asingle very long article, but that's not a useful arrangement. DGG ( talk ) 02:46, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

can you point out the policy basis of your claim " Asking for real wold details is relevant only if wee are discussing the WP coverage of the entire work " - I am pretty sure that no such rider exists at WP:GNG. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 03:41, 19 September 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, —Darkwind (talk) 07:55, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into/Redirect to World of Eberron. The topic fails to establish its notability because it is only sourced to primary sources. Our notability guideline requires "significant coverage from multiple reliable, secondary and independent sources" for each separate article per WP:NRVE, that threshold is not negotiable and it is obviously not met here.Folken de Fanel (talk) 17:08, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and Redirect into World of Eberron. The info is verifiable in authoritative sources and the topic is a reasonable search term. Per WP:PRESERVE, merging of verifiable topics is preferable to deletion and WP:ATD-M seems to apply here, Pages about non-notable fictional elements are generally merged into list articles or articles covering the work of fiction in which they appear. --Mark viking (talk) 17:24, 4 October 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. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:06, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Locust Grove, King and Queen County, Virginia[edit]

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

A hoax, although quite obviously created in good faith: it's based on a mistaken source. According to the GNIS source on the article (comment at end of my remarks), this is a populated place without municipal identity, i.e. an unincorporated community. However, GNIS sometimes makes errors — see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mount Jefferson (Ohio), a community that the GNIS classed as a mountain, or the discussion at User talk:Coal town guy#Gulston and Pansy, where it's noted that they misclassified the community of Sassafras Ridge, Kentucky as a ridgeline. Here, too, we have an error: USGS topo maps (accessible by clicking the coords and then picking Acme Mapper) mark it, but not necessarily as a town, and satellite view shows it to be a mix of woods and open country. Could it be a ghost town? Not likely — Google yields results for a Locust Grove near Walkerton, but they're for a Locust Grove plantation located almost precisely where GNIS says this community is located. GNIS has clearly misidentified the plantation as a community, and since plantations aren't necessarily notable, this should be deleted unless someone provides evidence of notability for it. Final note The article's GNIS source is down, but that's temporary; a few days ago, their server admins posted their equivalent of Mediawiki:Sitenotice saying that they were going to take it down for a little bit to perform maintenance. Nyttend (talk) 04:56, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment After doing a bit of research, it appears that all references to a "Locust Grove" in King and Queen County are to the Locust Grove farm or Locust Grove plantation, which is a prominent locale but doesn't appear to have been a community. It seems that the GNIS mis-classified this place as a populated place rather than a locale; considering they've done the reverse on several occasions, this doesn't surprise me too much. The plantation might be notable, though, since there are a number of references which mention or describe it and it's the site of Fort Mattaponi, which appears to be listed on the NRHP under an alternate spelling. However, my inclination is to delete the article as it stands, since it's not even about the plantation and an article on the plantation would have a different title. ~~(I'd also like to see the GNIS listing to see their citation for the placename; I suspect it's internal research, but if it's an external source that might be enlightening.)~~ (The source is now back online, and it cites USGS data as I suspected.) TheCatalyst31 ^{Reaction•Creation} 06:36, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I concur with Catalyst on this 100%. I just got back from a drive after doing a camping trip, its a place for a specific structure, not a community per se. I am sure in the late 19th century, it MIGHT have functioned like a small community, BUT, thats not relevant...Coal town guy (talk) 13:01, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Observation. I have been able to work with GNIS on several occasions just as others have as well. In the specific instance of Locust Grove, its an error on the part of GNIS. However, as myself and Catalyst have experienced, it is not at all out of the norm for this to happen. Of potential interest, after speaking at length with some folks at GNIS, their "mission" emphasis is to document current populated places. Historic places, are not at the top of their list. It is a courtesy that they actually do anything with historic communities, luckily, they are gracious to anyone who cares enough to provide data and history of an area.Coal town guy (talk) 13:10, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as creator. Though given TheCatalyst's comments above, I wonder if it mightn't be worthwhile to check into it as a historical name for one of the plantations near the fort. (The fort's locale is given as Walkteron, Virginia, which has two other NRHP sites associated with it. And I know that the NRHP doesn't always take the latest and/or most correct name when accepting a nomination.) --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 14:24, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's precisely why I said "unless someone provides evidence of notability"; someone did that with the Mount Jefferson thing I mentioned up above, and I was happy to see it continue and to provide additional content for it months after the AFD. Nyttend (talk) 20:14, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:15, 27 September 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. It might be good to check again in a few years.--Ymblanter (talk) 08:41, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

BBI Development NFI SA[edit]

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

No evidence of notability of the business Staszek Lem (talk) 22:28, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:38, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:38, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. But it is WP:LISTED. Some sources that may indicate notability: Raport in FT, coverage of activity in Wyborcza, coverage in TVN24. There's not much, but I think it may squeeze past GNG for companies as suggested per LISTED. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:03, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 02:14, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 02:16, 27 September 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. KTC (talk) 07:31, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nawzad medhat[edit]

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

Non-notable individual lacking GHits and GNEWS of substance. Fails WP:N. reddogsix (talk) 14:29, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iraq-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:22, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:23, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:23, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 02:26, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 02:14, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for reasons mentioned above, and I disagree with the A7 having been declined: I was on the verging of simply nuking it. Drmies (talk) 04:48, 27 September 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. JohnCD (talk) 16:30, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Chavis Chandler[edit]

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

Fails WP:MUSICBIO, his claim to fame is having one video featured on MTV's RapFix, in which they showcase one unknown rapper each episode. That was over a year ago and significance has still not be established. STATic message me! 13:53, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Gong show 15:36, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Gong show 15:37, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 02:27, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 02:12, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Another one where I think deletion via A7 would have been appropriate. Drmies (talk) 04:51, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You are definitely in the right, as I originally was. There was really zero point in keeping these promotional/COI, not notable artist's pages up for two weeks. STATic message me! 05:37, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not covered by reliable sources. Nwlaw63 (talk) 06:03, 27 September 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. JohnCD (talk) 16:31, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Roberto Winny[edit]

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

Fails WP:MUSICBIO. Only claim to fame is winning a not notable contest. Do not mistake his discography for something else, it is just a list of unofficial remixes he made, he had no part in the construction of the original songs. STATic message me! 13:42, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Gong show 15:34, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hungary-related deletion discussions. Gong show 15:34, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 02:28, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 02:11, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Declining A7 makes sense here, but there is really no sufficient evidence to support keeping the article. Drmies (talk) 04:52, 27 September 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. Drmies (talk) 04:53, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

AIM For Seva[edit]

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

An organization that fails WP:CORP, with sentential verified evidence of coverage coverage even in a single reliable secondary source. VI-007 (talk) 20:39, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:26, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:26, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Passes WP:NGO, well established and internationally known Non Governmental Organization. To give some sense the former President of India Abdul Kalam was guest speaker at a recent AIM For Seva fundraiser; the head of AIM For Seva was a guest speaker at TED Talk in the US. There are additional sources in Google Books not (yet) listed. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 01:07, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 02:30, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per substantial coverage in reliable independent sources. Candleabracadabra (talk) 12:38, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 02:10, 27 September 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. Usefulness or popularity of a parent article/subject does not mean the subject under discussion is notable in the absence of multiple reliable sources. Drmies (talk) 04:58, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Pokémon regions[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Approximately one year after people argued that it was a noteworthy topic for inclusion on Wikipedia, or that it can be improved, it hasn't proved true. The sources are almost exclusively either from Nintendo themselves - which is not necessarily a bad thing but seem to focus on referencing the existence of the regions rather than the significance or history - or unreliable, such as "Nintendo Gamez". The article should be stripped of its components and put into the relevant articles that benefit. My opinion is that generally, the video game articles should be the recipient of all content related to their respective region that isn't specifically about, say, the anime or what not. After that's done, the article should be deleted because it's not a likely necessary redirect. New Age Retro Hippie (talk) (contributions) 06:30, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: This page collects reliably sourced content about all of the fictional settings of the Pokémon video games, anime, etc., and includes third party reliable sources, particularly for the more recent games in the series. Arguably, more content can be dedicated to production, but it's going to be nigh impossible to find for items from over 10 years ago. Also, according to WP:VG, discussion of the setting is practically discussing the levels which is forbidden for some weird reason.—Ryulong (琉竜) 06:38, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Discussion of the setting simply needs to be at the right level. The best way in this context is to find sources that discuss important elements of the regions, such as Ruby/Sapphire having a long stretch of water. Having a well-written paragraph on the game's setting isn't bad. Anyway, the problem with the sources like NYT is that they're more so simply stating a fact rather than asserting that the fact is significant; NYT, from what I recall, simply stated that the movie was set in a specific location, not uncommon when explaining a movie or game. - New Age Retro Hippie (talk) (contributions) 06:42, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - Well recent sources have been remarking on the use of New York or France, but for older stuff I'm not too sure about it.—Ryulong (琉竜) 06:54, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: It's useful to have all the information about the regions together in one article and I don't think moving the information to their respective games would work nearly as well, not least because this article also contains information about the regions in the anime and the other non-video game parts of the franchise. Given the popularity and cultural influence of the franchise, I think this is worth keeping. Pieism (talk) 17:20, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Usefulness nor popularity are regarded as good reasons to keep an article on Wikipedia. As it stands, the sections of this article do not once assert notability through reliable, third-party sources, and without this, the article definitively fails WP:NOTE. - New Age Retro Hippie (talk) (contributions) 20:28, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 18:08, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:08, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:09, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:09, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral: I do agree with Hippie on the fact that these regions could easily be put into the game articles. The amount of anime information here is super minimal, and I don't really know what would be relevant to discuss about it. As for deleting the article, I think that saving history is important, and if you tried hard enough, you could make this into a great article. The question is if anybody is willing to. _Blake ^{(Talk·Edits)} 19:10, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Judging by last year's deletion discussion, no one is willing to try to.

Also, I think that the state of Gameplay of Pokémon is questionable. An ideal situation would be to have a Universe of Pokémon article with the regions, and all the aspects of the universe like Pokeballs and the Pokemon League, things that span all Pokémon media. Gameplay of Pokémon would only have gameplay features like stats/abilities. The problem is that the anime is derived from the games, so while it has aspects like Pokeballs, but doesn't go into full detail. You may see shinies in the anime(Ash's Noctowl), but to fully discuss them you must discuss them in the aspect of the game universe. It makes it a very sticky situation for the naming and content of these articles. _Blake ^{(Talk·Edits)} 19:18, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'd really rather not see yet another content repository. I would much rather see content like this used to improve the games that right now are actually notable. - New Age Retro Hippie (talk) (contributions) 20:28, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - while it could be put into game or other related articles, it's better to keep all of the information here, since 1) some of the regions belong to multiple games (e.g. Pokemon Diamond and Pearl + Pokemon Platinum), so there's in the majority of cases no clear merge target, and 2) the setting of the main games is being discussed more and more on its own in the video game media and has even been commented on in mainstream media, especially as the games are moving out of Japan and becoming more international. To be honest, though, this article shouldn't be so much about gameplay as the real-life correlations (if any) and production, and many of the "Other regions" should be merged into their respective main articles. Ansh6 6 6 19:23, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- But that makes no sense. You can't keep the "main regions" just because Black/White and X/Y have commentary on their designs and omit the side regions. Having a "Pokemon Regions" article, you would expect to see all of them, not just "the best". Its not like List of Pokémon characters, where including more would massively drive it out of control. If you omit Orre/Oblivia/Holon, you might as well omit Kanto/Johto for having similar lack of sources. _Blake ^{(Talk·Edits)} 19:34, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - Well, what I was getting at in that part was that we can keep the regions that we actually see in-game or in-anime or whatever (so Orre and Fiore, for example, would stay), but the "here's a cool new concept that doesn't fit in with anything else so let's just invent a new place where it came from that isn't mentioned ever again" ones like the "Stadium region" (merge into the Kanto section), Mystery Dungeon regions, and "Unknown locations" don't really fit in - so basically, anything without a proper name. Ansh6 6 6 20:26, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    - Pokemon Diamond and Pearl is clearly the appropriate target for Sinnoh because the region is its original use in video games. As for notability, again, its last AfD saw none of this supposed notability come out of the woodwork. As far as the article is concerned (in its current state), no one has commented on it. I don't want to see this article pass AfD without people properly asserting the oft-made claim that an article can have the sources if people try, because that usually never happens. - New Age Retro Hippie (talk) (contributions) 20:28, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      - Just noting, WP:N does not require that the sources found actually appear in the article itself, just that they exist. Ansh6 6 6 00:59, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        This statement serves no purpose because one would have to demonstrate that they exist, which no one has done. It is true that sources don't need to be in an article, but where exactly do you claim these sources of notability exist? That much needs to be proven. - New Age Retro Hippie (talk) (contributions) 01:44, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        Yeah, I know, I just wanted to clarify that one bit, though. I'm far too busy to do a thorough search, I'm really basing everything on the fact that I've read some articles about the locations of BW and XY. I feel that most of the sources for the earlier games would be offline (e.g. Nintendo Power magazines), given the time. Ansh6 6 6 02:02, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Is it possible to build a "Setting of Pokemon" article (akin to something like Mythology of Lost) from secondary sources? The Pokemon world has enough interesting oddities that I would guess one might be possible? At which point, this list can be merged into that. --MASEM (t) 04:30, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Reading through the arguments I'm convinced it should be kept. The number of video games, cartoons, comic books, films, toys, etc. of this multi-billion dollar long running series, justifies listing information to help understand the franchise, and these things all take place in these locations. It should be renamed to show it is a list article. Dream Focus 23:54, 24 September 2012 (UTC) (note, copied from the AFD last year, where same exact discussion already happened)[reply]
- Funny thing is, I voted Neutral last year as well. How about that? _Blake ^{(Talk·Edits)} 03:50, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- So you mean to suggest that the article doesn't have to be notable because it is Pokemon? That's silly and not supported by any guideline or policy. Being useful is a fantastic reason to have this article exist on Bulbapedia. Certainly not on Wikipedia. As it stands it has no more reason to exist than an article on Ash's hat would. - New Age Retro Hippie (talk) (contributions) 06:36, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

From what I can see, the arguments stem not from "the article proves its worth"; quite the contrary. The arguments almost exclusively focus on the parent subject (Pokemon) and justify its existence by saying "Pokemon is popular." What makes it okay that the AfD from last year resulted in keep? On this very day, the article has three independent reliable sources. GamesRadar, The New York Times, and Scholastic. Scholastic is used to verify a fact; GamesRadar notes a similarity between a Pokemon location and a real-world location; and The New York Times is, like Scholastic, used to verify a fact. Therefore, the article has only one source that is used as direct critical commentary on the Pokemon regions subject. Do you agree that in this discussion you are arguing that three independent third-party sources are adequate to sustain an article? Do you agree that 2/3 of these sources being used only to verify facts is troublesome? If not, why? - New Age Retro Hippie (talk) (contributions) 06:48, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per NARH commentary above, which is similar to my argument the last time this thing was up at AFD a year ago. Pokémon is wildly popular, and meets the GNG very easily. The game's setting, however, does not. There is very little actual coverage on this, and almost all of the information is either redundant to other Pokémon related articles, or would be better suited there instead of a standalone article. It should be deleted, and anything of note should be instead placed in the individual game's article, or in the series article. Sergecross73 msg me 19:37, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I just really hope that the closing administrator notes that the arguments for keeping the article are all based on the series' popularity and don't assert any notability for this specific subject. - New Age Retro Hippie (talk) (contributions) 23:05, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 02:08, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:GNG yes pokemon is a popular series but notability is not inherited, this is the policy editors need to think of here. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 02:51, 27 September 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. (non-admin closure) | Uncle Milty | talk | 16:58, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Martha Dilys Buckley-Jones[edit]

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

fails WP:BIO and WP:DIPLOMAT. zero gnews and gbooks hits. no inherent notability of ambassadors. LibStar (talk) 07:40, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 09:55, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 09:55, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note. She appears to have gone by Dilys, rather than Martha. A search of Dilys Buckley-Jones is more successful. Pburka (talk) 12:18, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

she is mostly making statements as an "External affairs spokesman" under that name. and not indepth coverage of her as a person. LibStar (talk) 00:24, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:46, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Yet another nomination incorrectly claiming little or no news coverage. It seems that the nominator made no more than a superficial effort to find sources. The subject is a former spokesperson for Foreign Affairs, and has dozens of GNews hits. Many of them are trivial mentions in her role as spokesperson, but others represent significant coverage. In 1967 the Calgary Herald thought she was important enough to write a long article about her visit to the city.[20] In 1997 the Toronto Star announced her appointment as ambassador.[21]. She's quoted in 100 Years of Canadian Foreign Policy.[22] This source[23] indicates that the Zambia Daily Mail published an interview with the ambassador on 17 July 2000 (like many older sources, it doesn't seem to be available on-line). Her opinions about negotiations with Gorbachev are reported in Journal Études Internationales.[24] Pburka (talk) 01:23, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

yes the Toronto star announced her appointment but that is a routine 2 line statement. Journal Études Internationales is merely 2 statements by her. And it's a mere one line quote in 100 Years of Canadian Foreign Policy in a book. I don't see a significant contribution to diplomacy (making a few quotes don't count). She does not meet WP:BASIC, lacking indepth coverage of her as the subject. LibStar (talk) 10:01, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 02:38, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 02:06, 27 September 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. Hut 8.5 19:48, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Con Magazine[edit]

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

Article de-PRODded with accusations of bias against small media outlets. However, PROD reason still stands: "New magazine, too young to have become notable yet. Article creation premature. Does not meet WP:GNG", hence: Delete Randykitty (talk) 11:18, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per lack of substantial coverage in reliable independent sources. Candleabracadabra (talk) 12:32, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:17, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:17, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Article should not be deleted. The Con, while new, is a notable and relevant news source. It has already been republished in mainstream media and other independent sources. Mail & Guardian, one of the places it has been republished, is generally the most respected mainstream media outlet in South Africa. Frombelow (talk) 21:35, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 02:05, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That Mail & Guardian is "generally the most respected etc" remains to be seen, and, at any rate, that they would republish a piece doesn't yet mean the original outlet is notable. Proof of notability comes from discussion in reliable sources, not from this. Since there is no evidence that this is a noteworthy media outlet, delete. Drmies (talk) 04:31, 27 September 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 Bloons. JohnCD (talk) 16:27, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Bloons Super Monkey 2[edit]

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

Non-notable game. This game was released four months ago and a Google search shows mostly gaming websites showing the game itself. --Bloonstdfan360 / talk / contribs 00:46, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 01:46, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:46, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Bloons. Not notable, because I can't find any reviews or other coverage in reliable sources. --Colapeninsula (talk) 09:33, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Colapeninsula above. I can't find any indication of notability. Sarahj2107 (talk) 07:49, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Deleted by Orangemike as a hoax. NAC by ukexpat (talk) 17:03, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

David Tomasi[edit]

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

Article whose subjects fail to meet the relevant notability guideline. Fake! No sutible citations. See also: de:David Tomasi (speed deleted) Clausthal (talk) 09:54, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Article is completely faked! See https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benutzerin:Itti/David_Tomasi A new unsourced article in only a few hours. Only one funny reference: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K-0m7mAahyU --Frze ^{> talk} 10:50, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It´s a fake. Nuke it. Weissbier (talk) 12:13, 27 September 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.