< 21 December	23 December >

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Mediran (t • c) 01:17, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

List of North American birds[edit]

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

This over large article was created because it was thought to be a good idea to have a list of all birds that live in the North American continent. Unfortunately, the article was found to be too long to load in a reasonable time and a means of rectifying the problem was sought. The geographical scope of the article is Mexico, USA and Canada. Each of these countries has a complete list of resident birds, so the information in this list is located elsewhere (albeit lass conveniently). The suggested means of dealing with this list is to split it and therefore there would be no advantage over the lists mentioned above. Therefore, I believe this list should be deleted and the articles on the individual countries relied upon to serve its purpose. Op47 (talk) 23:27, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If the list is to be split into multiple parts then the article should be retained as a disambiguation page - deletion is not necessary or even desirable. In any case the scope of this article is larger than Mexico, the USA and Canada, as North America includes Central America, the Caribbean and Greenland. Hut 8.5 17:05, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Really a WP:SETINDEX, not a disambiguation page. postdlf (talk) 00:25, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I doubt that the birds recognise national frontiers and so natural geography is a better basis for a list than political geography. Note also that Audubon's work covered all of North America including the Canada Goose, for example, and we should do no less. Warden (talk) 20:20, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The problem is that reliable sources overwhelmingly classify birds within political boundaries. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 19:29, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organisms-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:06, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:06, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:06, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: splitting by type of bird is also possible. Siuenti (talk) 00:10, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and probably convert it to a list-of-lists. There's no policy-based reason for deletion articulated, and I'm sure we can figure out a reasonable target to leave at this entirely intuitive title name. Jclemens (talk) 00:30, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I really don't like the fixation that WP editors have with lists (although I have created a few myself). This list is a bit "clunky" and something needs to be done with it. Are the birds endemic, naturalised, introduced etc? Which countries are they found in? We need to realise thatt there are comp[licated things such as political and biogeographical boudaries and that most birds can fly. Need to have it as a sortable table or as a big fat dab page to all sorts of other lists. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 04:56, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (!!) and eventually split by systematic groups, like Passerines and non- Passerines or smaller groups (but not too small). North America is and integral area, geographically and biogeographically, birds don't know borders and such list is very interesting. Darekk2 (talk) 10:00, 25 December 2012 (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 team articles.. MBisanz ^talk 01:51, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

National Basketball Association Cheerleading[edit]

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

There does not seem to be an NBA Cheerleading League. This is simply a list of NBA cheer squads. The info could be merged into team articles where warranted. Dbrodbeck (talk) 20:22, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I think the other AfDs should be mentioned with the others being nominated: WP:Articles for deletion/Canadian Football League Cheerleading, WP:Articles for deletion/MLB Cheerleading, WP:Articles for deletion/NHL Ice Dancers. Zappa O Mati 21:04, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Good idea, thanks. Dbrodbeck (talk) 21:17, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 00:45, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 00:45, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 00:45, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 00:45, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge each cheerleading squad into their respective teams' articles. Jrcla2 (talk) 19:04, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Content of the article can be cleaned up, but NBA cheerleaders do exist are are notable. WP:UGLY is not a reason to delete. Sources mention their early beginnings in the NBA with groups like the Laker Girls at ESPN, Boston being the last team to get cheerleaders USA Today Bloomberg book by Rick Pitino, background of the individuals Christian Science Monitor Sports Illustrated, male NBA dancers book. A list of all the teams' cheerleader squad names is notable to include here.—Bagumba (talk) 00:11, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The nominator's concern that there is no "NBA Cheerleading League" has been addressed. The lead was reworded to have the article be about the cheerleaders in the NBA and not a league of cheerleaders.—Bagumba (talk) 00:22, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LlamaAl (talk) 22:52, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge. Merge content to articles regarding respective NBA parent teams per Jrcla's comment above. Even if two or more of these cheerleading squads are deemed to marginally notable per WP:ORG and/or WP:GNG, there is neither enough suitable content nor encyclopedia value to justify stand-alone Wikipedia articles. A two or three-sentence paragraph within the parent NBA team articles would be about the right amount of coverage that these subjects merit. To quote WP:GNG, technical satisfaction of the notability guidelines is "not a guarantee . . . that a subject is suitable for inclusion." Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 23:01, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) AutomaticStrikeout (T • C) 20:32, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Andrea Canning[edit]

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

Non-notable per WP:BIO. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 22:52, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There is, in fact, no support in WP:BIO for deletion. Why didn't the nominator put the other NBC Dateline personalities, Lester Holt, Chris Hansen, Hoda Kotb, Josh Mankiewicz, Keith Morrison, and Dennis Murphy up for deletion if the nominator sees some guideline in WP:BIO that calls for deletion here? WP:BIO in fact states that the subject is "presumed to be notable if he or she has been the subject of multiple published secondary sources which are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject." That is satisfied here, as she's the subject of an Ontario newspaper story and a "Notable Alumni" story in a UWO publication, aside from bios at the websites of media she's worked at and this lengthy article in Maclean's, a national (Canada) magazine.. More intuitively, someone who is not just a local journalist but has been a TV journalist for a major U.S. network for years is hardly obscure. Deleting this article would create a redlink in the People of ABC News template (she just joined NBC News, however, so I will be moving her to the NBC template) and many other articles. Finally, it improves Wikipedia's utility as a reference tool to enable the wikilinking of byline names in cited sources so that the reliability of the source can be more readily assessed (by going to the bio of the news item author to get more information about the person's journalistic bone fides). As such, unless a journalist only works for local, small market media, I suggest the bio be kept absent a compelling reason to delete. This article has been visited more than 7700 times just since October 1. Wikipedia is here to inform and deletion here undermines that objective instead of advancing it.--Brian Dell (talk) 06:12, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (but improve): Keep per WP:SIGCOV and the diverse articles over time that mention her. This is another case, however, where the deletion nomination could lead to significant improvement in the article. There is more out there about her that could build up the article into something less vulnerable to deletion. By Wikipedia standards this is not a C-class article but rather on the borderline of Start and Stub as it is incomplete. Crtew (talk) 20:47, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:51, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:51, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:51, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - per WP:BASIC (see: [1]), the article needs to be improved further, but even in its current form, it contains a good amount of verifiable information, so much that I'm not sure why it is nominated for deletion. Nimuaq (talk) 10:32, 29 December 2012 (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. WP:SOFTDELETE The Bushranger _{One ping only} 17:55, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

PlayOn Records[edit]

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

This record label from Denmark appears to fail WP:N and WP:CORPDEPTH. Several searches in GNews archive and Books have only yielded this directory listing in Jazz Times. Northamerica1000^(talk) 05:09, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Cheers, Riley 00:08, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Whether the bands signed to the label are notable is a separate issue, but the label itself isn't notable. 1292simon (talk) 02:15, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Denmark-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:15, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:15, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:15, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Theo polisme 22:50, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Mediran (t • c) 01:16, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Tahoe-LAFS[edit]

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

Does not meet GNG. No assertion of notability, no secondary sources. Article even makes it clear that it is simply one of many similar products. MSJapan (talk) 01:16, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - the links above for Scholar and News reveal a wealth of notable, reliable sources. ciphergoth (talk) 15:03, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:12, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:12, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:12, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, good deal of secondary sources as noted by Ciphergoth (talk · contribs), above. Cheers, — Cirt (talk) 02:25, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 22:45, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted per discussion in Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2012 December 15. Sandstein 22:46, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I have added six references. -- Cheers, Riley 07:41, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, WP:SNOW. at nomination it had a secondary (Ars), advise do a quick search next time, but added sources have improved it. Widefox; talk 10:39, 25 December 2012 (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 Westfield Group shopping centres in Australia. MBisanz ^talk 01:52, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Westfield Penrith[edit]

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

Declined WP:PROD. The only coverage I found of this shopping centre was from the local newspaper (not an indication of notability per WP:ORG) and other minor, trivial mentions such as winning the lottery ticket. An acceptable source I found was this, although I doubt that's enough to write an article out of. Till 01:22, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Grahame (talk) 01:49, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Shopping malls-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:56, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, there are more sources if you look under its original name Penrith Plaza. Rotten regard 01:51, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

And the sources cover exactly what I stated above—minor, trivial mentions, which do not warrant a standalone article for this topic. Till 03:48, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Cheers, Riley 00:10, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Possibly warrants a mention in Penrith, but not its own article. 1292simon (talk) 02:03, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep as part of comprehensive coverage of Westfield's notable activities in Australia, or alternatively merge and redirect to List of Westfield Group shopping centres in Australia per the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Westfield Mount Druitt.--Arxiloxos (talk) 17:22, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- See WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Till 22:08, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Consistency with similar AfDs is not an OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 17:56, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Theo polisme 22:46, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of Westfield Group shopping centres in Australia. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 17:56, 29 December 2012 (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. MBisanz ^talk 01:53, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ohio State University shooting[edit]

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

Wikipedia is WP:NOTNEWS. Not every tragic event should have an article. Reywas92^Talk 00:46, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Super Goku V (talk) 03:19, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. Super Goku V (talk) 03:19, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Super Goku V (talk) 03:19, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. There was a single death. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 00:14, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Notability is not defined by number of people killed. Everyking (talk) 13:35, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, substantial press coverage indicates notability. Everyking (talk) 13:35, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The sources demonstrate that this is news and little different than most other publicized acts of violence. Reywas92^Talk 01:01, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - The extent of coverage suggests that it was not treated as a routine or minor event. Therefore it is "different than most other publicized acts of violence". Everyking (talk) 02:50, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Theo polisme 22:43, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:EVENT; WP:NOT#NEWS §FreeRangeFrog^croak 22:46, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. In this day and age of Internet media, "extent of coverage" doesn't necessarily demonstrate notability - it's WP:PERSISTENCE that does, and there doesn't seem to be any here. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 17:58, 29 December 2012 (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. MBisanz ^talk 01:53, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Red Lion Area Junior High School shooting[edit]

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

Wikipedia is WP:NOTNEWS. There should not be an article for every tragic incident. Reywas92^Talk 01:37, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Super Goku V (talk) 03:23, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. Super Goku V (talk) 03:23, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Super Goku V (talk) 03:23, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. There were only 2 deaths. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 00:13, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- If it's notable, why should it matter how many people died? Everyking (talk) 13:32, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, sources demonstrate notability. Everyking (talk) 13:32, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The sources demonstrate that this is news and little different than most other publicized acts of violence. Reywas92^Talk 01:00, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Theo polisme 22:42, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:EVENT and Wikipedia is not a newspaper. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 22:47, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per FRF; no WP:PERSISTENCE. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 17:58, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 17:59, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Love (Lapko album)[edit]

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

Only track list, and seems non-notable. Make cat 01:57, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. If the nominator believes it is notable, why was it nominated? Pburka (talk) 02:48, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I presume the nominator meant non-notable? Anyhow, it really isn't supported by reliable sources. dci | TALK 03:30, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, the mistake was cause by the memory function of my input method. --Make cat 06:57, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Finland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:36, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:36, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Theo polisme 22:41, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:NALBUMS. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 22:48, 22 December 2012 (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. MBisanz ^talk 01:53, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Patrik Twardzik[edit]

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

I do not believe player meets WP:GNG and I'm unable to find evidence he has played for first team in a fully pro leauge. [2] Blethering Scot 21:59, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 17:07, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - He has not received significant coverage or played in a fully pro league, meaning the article fails WP:GNG and WP:NSPORT. Sir Sputnik (talk) 17:07, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Fails WP:NFOOTBALL and WP:GNG. – Michael (talk) 23:26, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:44, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 09:38, 24 December 2012 (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. MBisanz ^talk 01:53, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

List of Music Genome Project attributes[edit]

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

Verifiability. See also point 3 of Wikipedia:IINFO#IINFO: "Long and sprawling lists of statistics may be confusing to readers and reduce the readability and neatness of our articles. In addition, articles should contain sufficient explanatory text to put statistics within the article in their proper context for a general reader." See also points #4, #7, #8, #10, and #11 of the WP:LISTCRUFT essay. WCityMike (talk) 21:41, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. One of the main problems is that the MGP declines to release the list of attributes -- they consider it a trade secret. Thus, the attributes are gained by looking at the attributes for particular songs as they are playing. It's not really a suitable project for Wikipedia; Wikisource might like it maybe? But it's still an original list. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 21:44, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete While somewhat interesting, it is not based on secondary sources discussing these attributes but pretty much copied from the primary source. So not notable by WP standards. Kitfoxxe (talk) 22:31, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'm personally fond of this list, but there are absolutely no secondary sources discussing the attributes, nothing on how they're determined, so on and so forth. As interesting as the list is, there's nothing to suggest notability. ~Cheers, Ten Ton Parasol 23:58, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:42, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:42, 23 December 2012 (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'm going to stub the article back to the version Fadesga (talk · contribs) created, which was referenced and asserted (if weakly) notability. Note that I'm doing that as an editor and not as part of the close. Mackensen (talk) 04:05, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Haris Tarin[edit]

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

Fails WP:ANYBIO, no claims to notability other than having a job and being a graduate student. Needs references WP:TOOSOON re articles he has published. MJH (talk) 23:00, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi people. I was the user who started this article as a stub. I see that another user has further added and added information which is not further referenced. As for me, this old version was short, but at least referenced enough. I propose going back to it. Regards, --Fabio Descalzi, aka Fadesga (talk) 01:34, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 02:24, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:33, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:33, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the subject is apparently notable. Nevertheless, the article needs work. Mr T ^(Talk?) ^{(New thread?)} 11:25, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

President Obama called him to thank him for his work. The Washington Post also talked about his speech at a Washington panel on how the next U.S. president can combat violent Islamic extremism. This huffington post bio is useful also. The question I think is can we write a credible article about this man with citations of reliable sources? I think we can. Let's not stretch it further. Cheers, Mr T ^(Talk?) ^{(New thread?)} 20:12, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 06:18, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep Per Mrt3366's evidence, it seems if one were to fix up the article using those sources, the article could establish notability. However, I am not 100% sure about this, and I think we could find this out best if we did it. Unless I decide to go to sleep instead or get sidetracked, I will try this approach out for myself. Greengreengreen red 07:04, 15 December 2012 (UTC) Analysis of those sources shows a lack of notability for this article. Therefore, my vote is Delete. Greengreengreen red 07:16, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. Has been the subject of some significant coverage, e.g. Washington Post, Daily News of Los Angeles. --Michig (talk) 09:16, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 21:12, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable. Coverage is minor with few accomplishments to warrant an entry in an encyclopedia. "Rising ... leader" suggests he might become interesting. Jason from nyc (talk) 15:12, 26 December 2012 (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. postdlf (talk) 23:02, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Joel Gilbert[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

This page has already been deleted once. See here. I don't think anything substantial has occurred since then. Harizotoh9 (talk) 20:50, 22 December 2012 (UTC) (categories)[reply]

Comment I felt the article was vandalized the last time it was there.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Vnisanian2001 (talk • contribs) 13:26, December 22, 2012‎
~~Delete~~ Weak Keep - I see only mentions, falling well short of GNG criteria. Yakushima (talk) 14:34, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:37, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral for now. A quick look finds that Joel has produced and directed a number of documentaries.[3] If his works have received the requisite coverage, then he would be notable enough under WP:CREATIVE even if failing WP:GNG. . Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 00:39, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Much as it galls me to admit it, the criterion of "multiple independent periodical articles or reviews" in Clause 3 of WP:CREATIVE appears to apply to this subject. The claim made by some here of WP:GNG doesn't seem to stand up, however. Yakushima (talk) 05:19, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per meeting WP:FILMMAKER and his works meeting WP:GNG. Just began work on expanding and sourcing the article. Yes, it was unsourced when firs brought to AFD, but that issue is proving addressable as his films about the life and works of Bob Dylan and Paul McCartney and even Barack Obama have received the requisite media attention... some positive... some negative. If it is thought his recent notoriety as a political filmmaker makes this newer version a target for vandalism, we have methods to deal with such that do not require deletion of arguably notable topics. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 05:20, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per massive sourcing by MQS. This now passes WP:GNG, WP:CREATIVE, WP:BIO, WP:N and WP:V. Good job! Bonkers The Clown (Nonsensical Babble) 05:37, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Schmidt. — ΛΧΣ²¹ 06:12, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Post-nomination update: What was sent to AFD as a 1084 characters (183 words) unsourced stub[4] is now a 5832 characters (956 words) start or C class article.[5] So far... a 5x expansion. Merry Christmas Wikipedia~ Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 20:16, 24 December 2012 (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. MBisanz ^talk 01:54, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Cameron Scorer[edit]

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

Article about an artist that relies on routine local coverage (and his Facebook page) to establish notability. Has not released any actual albums, and some of the claims in the bio about collaborations with other artists are unsourced and cannot be verified. I do not believe he meets the notability guidelines for inclusion of performers, or even the basic ones. As is usual in the case of young artists, this might be a case of too soon. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 20:37, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:42, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not yet notable. --Michig (talk) 09:53, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I hope this guy's career takes off, but at the moment he does not meet our guidleines for inclusion. — sparklism ^hey! 09:32, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles 00:17, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Bravo's 100 Greatest TV Characters[edit]

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

Not a notable list, and more importantly, it's between the list and the prompt, there is only one line in the entire article that isn't copied material. Possibly could have the top 10 merged if there's a collection of similar lists, but I don't know of one. Sven Manguard Wha? 17:58, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable and unsourced. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 00:07, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- How can it be unsourced? The subject of the article is a source. postdlf (talk) 01:12, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
After doing some searching, I found this USA Today article and this U~T San Diego article, although I'm not sure if that's enough for notability. For right now, I'm going with weak delete, since everything else I could find was forum posts, games based off of the special, and the like. Lugia2453 (talk) 00:43, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:57, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:57, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:57, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If kept, the list should be blanked as a copyvio (except for maybe an accounting of the top five or so) as their list is not factual but is instead creative in its selection and arrangement. The question for the article as a whole is whether the five-part TV special is notable; the TV character list is the subject or content of that special. postdlf (talk) 01:12, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Theo polisme 20:06, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a copy vio. Not sure what you'd write about the list if you couldn't just reproduce the whole thing. That being said, there are no reliable third party sources that write about this list, making it impossible to WP:verify notability. Shooterwalker (talk) 19:30, 25 December 2012 (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 Doolittle Raid. Mackensen (talk) 04:17, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Robert L. Hite[edit]

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

In a similar manner to the discussion and conclusion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Richard E. Cole, this biography fails the notability test of WP:SOLDIER. It should be redirected to Doolittle Raid per WP:ONEEVENT, the same result as Richard E. Cole. Binksternet (talk) 20:36, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Binksternet (talk) 20:45, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: a very similar case is under discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/David J. Thatcher. Thank you. Binksternet (talk) 21:20, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep as the nomination is fatally flawed: Hite was a participant in the Doolittle Raid (see WP:SOLDIER #5). Subject is obviously a figure of historical significance, and it should be noted that this AfD nom appears to be motivated by the desire to win an edit war. [6] The nominator ought to know better and should be given a caution per WP:POINT. Belchfire-TALK 21:47, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- "Edit war" is with a banned user who was banned for sock-puppetry and vandalism. All the editors who want to keep the article in the article's history is one person. Do you research before going off on an editor.Bgwhite (talk) 08:32, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Nonsense. The user User_talk:199.106.164.143 is not banned. Yes, you should do your research. Belchfire-TALK 09:02, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - User:Redflyer22 and his puppets are banned. The user has been using IPs since then to make his point, including insults, vandalism and taking people, including me to ANI to plead his case. The point being is you automatically accused another editor in an edit war. Assume good faith unless you have evidence otherwise. Bgwhite (talk) 05:35, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Doolittle Raid. Per nomination. EricSerge (talk) 23:03, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Appears reliably sourced (meeting GNG), individual was recipient of a Distinguished Flying Cross. --Nouniquenames 23:38, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- One DFC does not meet WP:SOLDIER which requires one MOH or several second-tier honors. Binksternet (talk) 23:45, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Hite easily meets the requirements of WP:SOLDIER.

"In particular, individuals will almost always have sufficient coverage to qualify if they:

5. Played an important role in a significant military event;

Belchfire-TALK 23:58, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If he was merely a co-pilot on a raid in company with other aircraft then I do not think that this is sufficient to qualify under WP:SOLDIER. After all, a great many men have participated in notable military actions and most do not have an article. Is there something other than that he survived to qualify him? --AJHingston (talk) 00:20, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Nounique names above. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 00:34, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect Doesn't pass WP:GNG. There are 3 refs. One is unreliable. One just lists his citation... along with everybody else who received a citation. He was one of 80+ people on the raid. Are we going to list everybody who played a role in a notable battle or raid? Bgwhite (talk) 08:28, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Why not? NOTPAPER --Nounique names 22:28, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect. Taking part in a notable event does not automatically make a person notable. Being the co-pilot of one aircraft does not equal an important role. Even commanding an aircraft wouldn't equal that. And a single second-tier decoration is not sufficient for notability either. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:08, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect I agree redirect and merge anything not already in the other piece. --Sonic2030 (talk) 17:18, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 02:12, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 02:12, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect The 4 references come from 3 different sources. Only one of the references, #1, provides any significant coverage of him. References #1 & #2 though are not independent of him as they are from the website of the child of one of the raiders. #3 just mentions that he was one of the 8 raiders that were captured. #4 is the citation for his DFC and from the looks of it was just boiler plated with a majority of the awards. I do not see significant coverage of him in reliable sources to support an independent article, but there is enough to redirect the page to the operation he took part in. GB fan 14:30, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, meets GNG. WP:SOLDIER is an essay, not policy. GregJackP Boomer! 15:52, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:ONLYESSAY. Funny I bring it up since I agree with you, but fair and balanced, y'know. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 16:44, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- How exactly does the biography meet GNG? There should be multiple reliable sources discussing Hite's life in detail, not in passing. The Doolittle Raider website dedicates a page to Hite but that's all I see. You would have to find at least one other detailed source and you would have to make sure the Doolittle Raider website qualifies as WP:RS. Binksternet (talk) 19:20, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Theo polisme 20:04, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per User:GB fan. The sources aren't enough to indicate Hite's notability. City Of Silver 22:19, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep Persons who are only mentioned in primary docs like genealogical records or family histories are excluded from Wikipedia but this subject is not in that category. There's the opportunity for some encyclopedic info about the PoW experience that doesn't fit with the Doolittle raid article because of the post-raid focus. Why does Wikipedia have a Category:Recipients_of_the_Distinguished_Flying_Cross_(United_States) if this award is common? In any case, if this subject ends up the last survivor of the raid that will add to notability and it would be a pain to have lost the work for an article about the last survivor because of deletion.--Brian Dell (talk) 07:01, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody said the DFC was "common". No true gallantry decoration is actually "common". But that doesn't mean we should have an article for every one of the millions who have been awarded gallantry decorations over the centuries. There has to be a limit. And the limit is generally regarded as a single award of a country's highest gallantry award, two or more awards of the next highest or multiple awards of lower decorations. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:03, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There is potential for much information if reliable sources for the information can be found. At this point reliable sources have not been found that provide significant coverage of Hite. There is plenty of information about the Raid itself but only minor information about Hite. If additional information is published/found in the future then the article can be recreated. In the unlikely event that the article is deleted and not just redirected the work that went into writing it is not lost but simply hidden from the view of the majority of viewers. Admins can retrieve the work and provide a starting point for an expanded article. GB fan 12:50, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep as the nomination is fatally flawed. Wikipedia has literally hundreds of pages of people who are of dubious notability. This person is former war hero and POW who participated in one of the most daring military operations in history. After creating the page, several admins complimented me on the creation, yet one admin "bgwhite" took it upon himself to delete the page for no reason and without any discussion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Biciklista10 (talk • contribs) 23:09, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. No evidence or policy-based argument presented for notability j⚛e decker ^talk 07:23, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Defected Girl (Doujinshi)[edit]

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

Does not pass WP:BKCRIT. As a dōjinshi manga, it was just self published, and there are no RS that shows it was especially notable in that field. Existing sources are not RS: just blog or forum pieces. Search of Japanese sources comes up with no RS. (Note that the English title is a bad translation: it should at least be "Defective Girl", though searches for that come up with nothing significant.) Michitaro (talk) 19:39, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:36, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No evidence of notability in sources. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 21:03, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Doujinshi are usually not notable unless they receive coverage in reliable sources. This one is no exception. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 22:37, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The title "Defected Girl" may be wrong, but it's autor's translation (欠損少女). Looks like, that Romantic Fool doesn't speak english at the high level. But he was a creator of this manga, so he can named his creation as he want. The main character of this manga, Bikko, is very popular on the imageboards and forums. I'm the autor of the uk:Defected Girl article. This character have a lot of fans, so I think that this article should be present on the english wikipedia. Silent hill Hunter (talk) 12:10, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever the title should be, the manga needs to pass basic notability criteria to have an article on Wikipedia, such as WP:GNG and WP:BKCRIT. Having some mentions on imageboards and forums is not sufficient. There must be independent, reliable sources that discuss the work in detail, or proof of notability such as major prizes. Merely saying here it has lots of fans is not proof. You must provide multiple reliable sources that show it does have significant popularity. Note that according to WP:RS, blogs and forums are not usually reliable sources. Michitaro (talk) 08:38, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Even searching using the Japanese title doesn't give me anything relevant. And the main argument for deletion here is not because it has a wrong title, it's that it has received little-to-no coverage in reliable sources, which is common to most doujin works. Being popular in forums, blogs or imageboards does not automatically establish notability. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 10:19, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Something to look for: Did the doujin win a notable award? Are there reliable sources covering the doujin? Even if you have the doujin win an award it still might only be worthy of a section in a larger article if possible. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 16:25, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, this article may be merged with another article. Silent hill Hunter (talk) 21:38, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have some question. In this article I gave link to the only preserved chapter of this doujinshi. You can look this chapter and rank this manga. I give search result for the teg :(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL). You may also use google images searcher. So, this doujinshi is common in the internet. Silent hill Hunter (talk) 20:34, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

First, which article would you think it might be best to merge with? Second, are you arguing that this should be an article on the character, instead of on the manga? I thought of that possibility as well, but again, while the searches show the character does exist in various places on the net, since there are no reliable secondary sources on that character that I can find, it is hard to determine just how notable this character is. Michitaro (talk) 00:42, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, sorry me for waiting, I was so busy. I think, that this page may be merged with page doujinshi (in those page somebody may created section "Famous Doujinshi" Silent hill Hunter (talk) 21:22, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I am somewhat familiar with Bikko - enough to recognise her but I would struggle to name her, and while I knew she was an original character I could not have named the work she was from or even the artist. Note that while the artist has a page on the Japanese wikipedia, this doujin does not so it is not currently even considered notable in its native language. The only interwiki link we have is to the Ukranian Wiki - and the page there was created by the same user as here. As a matter of interest, there are 127 illustrations tagged ビっ子さん on Pixiv dating back to 2007. Shiroi Hane (talk) 21:20, 26 December 2012 (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. MBisanz ^talk 01:55, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Matt Finish Chronology[edit]

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

Long list of concert dates and locations over last 33 years lacking inline citations. I checked a few obvious bands/performers (ie, The Beatles, Kylie, etc) and they do not have equivalent chronology pages which makes this seem a clear delete, but am flagging for discussion. Mabalu (talk) 19:20, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:32, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:32, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:32, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - This was bugging me so I had another poke around and tracked down Category:Lists of concert tours, including the names I had been trying to find chronology articles for. I can see that I may have made a mistake with this AFD nom - it may need renaming to something a bit more logical like "List of Matt Finish concerts and key dates" or similar, rather than being deleted, but will see what others say. Mabalu (talk) 22:50, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:IINFO and WP:NOTWEBHOST - we don't need an article which lists every concert by any band, and especially not a fairly obscure outfit such as this. This would be good content for the band's own website, but it's not encyclopedic. Nick-D (talk) 04:45, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Nick-D. Buckshot06 (talk) 20:58, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Please don't delete this article. It contains important historical information about one of Australia's most successful live bands since the late seventies and their connection to other influential Australian bands including Midnight Oil, INXS, Icehouse, The Angels and Cold Chisel. Matt Finish is not "a fairly obscure outfit" considering they have performed more than 3,000 shows live to over a million people, sold over 250,000 albums, have songs in numerous films and television shows and are still played on Australia radio. Matt Finish also toured with XTC, The B52s, Roxy Music and U2. U2 have an "equivalent chronology" on Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_U2 and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U2_concert_tours. Please don't delete this important historical article about one of Australia's greatest bands. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.169.5.31 (talk) 10:16, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, essentially per Nick-D. This is the sort of information that would be useful on a fansite for the band, but Wikipedia is not a Matt Finish fansite! Would be happy to userify this list if it's deleted so that the content can be hosted somewhere else (ie: not Wikipedia), as it's clear a fair bit of effort has gone into it. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 23:57, 26 December 2012 (UTC).[reply]
Placing this here as additional comment made by anon ISP who deleted other votes in order to post: Mabalu (talk) 10:33, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
DO NOT DELETE THIS PAGE!!!!!!!!

Here's a list of the Ramones gigs: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Ramones_concerts Here's a list of the Jedward gigs: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Jedward_concert_tours Here's a list of the Jonas Brothers gigs: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jonas_Brothers#Concert_tours Here's a list of the Jessie J gigs: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Jessie_J_concert_tours Here's a list of the The Veronicas gigs: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_The_Veronicas_concert_tours Many more here: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Search&limit=20&offset=20&redirs=0&profile=default&search=list+of+concerts If these artists merit a dedicated page of concert listings, Matt Finish also does. Matt Finish had a longer career than many of these acts and played more gigs to more people. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.169.5.31 (talk) 27 December 2012 (UTC)

This is essentially a case of "other stuff exists". We're discussing the Matt Finish article here, not those other ones. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 05:37, 29 December 2012 (UTC).[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy deleted by Jimfbleak (non-admin closure). -- LuK3 (Talk) 21:09, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sinking ship statement[edit]

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

Meaningless nonsense with no significance whatsoever. United States Man (talk) 19:10, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As original research at best. Wish there was a CSD criteria for these. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 19:17, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Agree that an OR CSD cat would be good. Harry the Dog WOOF 19:28, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, it sort of aggravated me that I had to go through all of this to get it deleted. United States Man (talk) 20:20, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as original research. The article isn't meaningless nonsense to me, but I don't see any sources that would suggest that the term "sinking ship statement" is used in this context anywhere outside this Wikipedia article. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 20:29, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOT#DICDEF. Blue Riband► 20:36, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 18:06, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Philipe Abu-Mana[edit]

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

Recreation of an article previously deleted by PROD. Concern was Articles lacking sufficient context to identify the subject of the article for those who are not familiar with the subject. While this has since been remedied, he still has not played in a fully pro league or received significant coverage, meaning this article fails WP:NSPORT and WP:GNG. Sir Sputnik (talk) 16:04, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 16:04, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:20, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as he fails Wikipedia policies as mentioned above, due to not playing professional football or being written about. Cloudz 679 21:38, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 09:34, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Nomination withdrawn. Black Kite (talk) 13:21, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Quantifier shift[edit]

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

As presented here this article is pure original research. That needs to change or it needs to go. There is no logical fallacy in that! Fiddle Faddle (talk) 15:14, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:19, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Psst! You'll be wanting to read what a Google Books search turns up, and revising your opinion on original research, well before WikiProject Mathematics gets wind of this AFD discussion. ☺ Uncle G (talk) 22:46, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- All articles require references. All. As it stands it looks like OR. It has cute mathematical stuff in it, but what it looks like is what it looks like. I'm not a mathematician. Folk who understand this stuff should reference it, or it should go. Why are we whispering? Fiddle Faddle (talk) 23:18, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Because I was giving you a chance to save time and face and avoid being told the same thing by a lot of people. It takes less than 30 seconds to come up with sourcing for this with a Google Books search, and following deletion policy you should have done that search for sources yourself before thinking of AFD. The original step-by-step instructions that used to be in our deletion and verifiability policies are preserved at User:Uncle G/Wikipedia triage#What to do. They're still in deletion policy, except that they've been obscured by people trying to remove instructions on how to actually put policy into practice and simply state the goal without any guide to getting there, which hasn't really been a positive step in hindsight. (People handled this better years ago, when the policy directly told them what to do.) In this instance, looking for sources yourself would have turned up a boatload, including the OUP Oxford Dictionary of Philosophy in addition to the Cambridge one already mentioned. If one doesn't understand a subject, by the way, then one's evaluation of whether something is original research is fairly worthless. One has to at least looked for sources, and read them and compared what they say to what the article says, to determine whether something is a novel hypothesis not propounded outwith Wikipedia. Things don't simply become original research because of what an article looks like. One has to read, understand, and check. Uncle G (talk) 01:36, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The Quantifier shift fallacy (also called an illicit quantifier shift), is a well-known concept in logic and philosophy. A simple Google search turns up many pages that discuss the concept: ^[1], ^[2], ^[3]. These links lead to the references like,
- Robert Audi (General Editor), The Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy (Second Edition), 1999, pp. 272-3.
- A. R. Lacey, Dictionary of Philosophy (Third Revised Edition) (Barnes & Noble, 1996).
- Introduction to Logic, Harry J. Gensler, p. 220
not to mention the books that Uncle G mentioned. The topic is very notable. The article does need references, but AfD is not for cleanup WP:NOTFORCLEANUP and the article should be kept. Mark viking (talk) 23:15, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- If you are sure of your ground, instead of quoting essays, put the references in. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 23:20, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Remember that this is a collaborative project. You have an edit tool too. You can easily copy and paste a citation from this page to that one. Uncle G (talk) 01:36, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep; in addition to the sources mentioned above, it is mentioned with its own entry "quantifier-shift fallacy" in Dictionary of Philosophy: Revised Second Edition, by Antony G. Flew, and with its own entry in Historical Dictionary of Logic by Harry J. Gensler. The fact that the fallacy is mentioned in numerous textbooks and has its own entry in "dictionaries" like these is clear evidence of notability. The nominator should take heed of WP:BEFORE #B2. — Carl (CBM · talk) 01:27, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Nominator's argument that this is OR appears to rely on the lack of references in the article (and a misunderstanding of what it means to be OR), but both are easily remedied. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:25, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep i've now added the references mentioned here, but not any inlines.--Salix (talk): 10:42, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for recognising that the encyclopaedia comes first. Since references, albeit taken on trust, are added, I withdraw the nomination. It no longer appears to be OR. It amazes me always that others will bleat about references existing but fail to add them. You took the references given and built the encyclopaedia. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 11:37, 23 December 2012 (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. WP:SNOW. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 17:56, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

British Airways Flight 117[edit]

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

Contested PROD, notice removed without rationale on talk page & witout edit summary. Appears to be an unremarkable aviation incident. TheLongTone (talk) 13:14, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:AIRCRASH not to mention WP:GNG. A flight has a mechanical problem and turned around. Happens everyday around the world....William 15:03, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions....William 15:03, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions....William 15:03, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions....William 15:03, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a non-notable event, warning light comes on aircraft returns, just one of those things that happens. MilborneOne (talk) 15:19, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I was on a flight that had one of the engines explode on takeoff. It stopped and returned, too. That wasn't notable either. Mildly exciting, yes, notable, no. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 16:04, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:AIRCRASH. All on board survived (which is great), however the aircraft did not sustain any serious damage. -- LuK3 (Talk) 17:04, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per everyone above. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 20:30, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Since the dawn of aviation there have been a very large number of incidents due to mechanical failure, human error, weather, hostile action and so forth. Were Wikipedia to attempt to catalogue them all then by the same logic it should include every identifiable marine event in which a vessel was in danger, every hazardous railway incident, every building fire in which lives were in danger, every road accident and near miss where a significant number of people were at risk, etc, etc. It does not, and it should not. --AJHingston (talk) 00:30, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per obvious lack of notability and WP:NOT#NEWS. RedSoxFan2434 (talk) 00:43, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A seemingly routine incident that had no notable consequences that would prove worthy of a standalone article as indicated in WP:AIRCRASH. Mkdw ^talk 08:07, 23 December 2012 (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. postdlf (talk) 22:55, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Capel Dewi[edit]

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

Contains purely redlink. Weihang7 (talk) 13:00, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment As the dab page creator I can't vote, but maybe waiting less than half an hour to place a deletion tag on this article seems a little bit hasty. Before the end of the day all three red links now have articles, which was always my intention. Please give editors a chance to see things through; I do have a mail page you could use. FruitMonkey (talk) 23:04, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Page was nominated by new user who seems well intentioned but knows little about wikipedia policies: he also removed a PROD notice for the article listed directly above, clearly non-notable if one knows anything about the subject, as the rapid close of the debate shows.TheLongTone (talk) 20:26, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There are, however, articles linked to Capel Dewi.TheLongTone (talk) 14:38, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - yes, and further there is no doubt at all that the hamlets listed are real places, so given Wikipedia's gazetteer function, those pages if created will certainly be kept, and this page should be also. Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:59, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Capel Dewi, Carmarthenshire17:23, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wales-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:14, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:14, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Clearly. -- Necrothesp (talk) 00:31, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, of course. But even if they were all redlinks, would probably be worth keeping in an IAR-ish way, to distinguish between three locations, all potential articles. PamD 17:54, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep another ill-informed disruptive nomination. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 19:09, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- Whatever its status when nominated. This is now a properly constrcuted DAB page. I susopect that this is a case of premature nomination of a page under construction. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:33, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Mediran (t • c) 01:14, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

List of University of Oslo Faculty of Law alumni[edit]

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

Indiscriminate list, in that I see -- as a conservative estimate -- 5,000 possible list entries. As the list itself says; "Its alumni hence includes the vast majority of the country's preeminent legal professionals, including academics, supreme court justices, senior civil servants, and a large number of politicians" and businessmen could be added to that. Much better off being categorized, if we diffuse the category "University of Oslo alumni" which has become large. Geschichte (talk) 12:56, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep: With high ranking politicians like the UN Secretary General, it seems just barely notable enough for a standalone article, provided there are enough references added to support it -RoseL2P (talk) 13:35, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on the original deletion rationale. The matter is not whether it's notable, but that it's "too notable" with thousands upon thousands of potential entries, making it indiscriminate. Geschichte (talk) 16:16, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:20, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:20, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:20, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, completely standard list of notable alumni of a notable educational institution that easily satisfies WP:LISTPURP, with no reason not to also have a complementary category per WP:CLN. This nomination seems to simply stem from a lack of experience with or awareness of lists of this kind (though that's surprising), because as with nearly all lists of people (by nationality, by occupation, by place of origin, etc.) it is ordinary and uncontroversial practice to limit such lists only to those people who merit articles, as should have been obvious from the fact that it currently only contains bluelinks. So the "indiscriminate" claim is simply based on an incorrect assumption. postdlf (talk) 18:10, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, per

WP:NOTDUP: "It is neither improper nor uncommon to simultaneously have a category, a list, and a navigation template which all cover the same topic"

WP:LISTPURP:"Redundancy of lists and categories is beneficial" Ottawahitech (talk) 23:57, 22 December 2012 (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 Reverted to transwiki. Note that an article on Iouea the fossil sponge genus would be an entirely valid topic. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 18:10, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Iouea[edit]

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

Unsourced article with no evidence of notability Mikenorton (talk) 23:05, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Revert to latest edit provided by PWilkinson~~Delete~~ - Google News provides irrelevant results and it seems this is entirely supported by that book. Nothing to establish notability from a third-party perspective. SwisterTwister talk 23:31, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 02:23, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Revert to the latest edit before what had previously been a soft redirect to Wiktionary was hijacked by an IP whose sole aim seems to have been to get the current content onto Wikipedia. Absolutely no objection to revision deletion of subsequent edits and/or semi-protection of the page. PWilkinson (talk) 18:24, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree that would be the best outcome, so no objection to that. Mikenorton (talk) 20:51, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Revert to the transwiki per above. This was allegedly created on "December 21, 2011". Bearian (talk) 18:40, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:56, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Revert to soft redirect per PWilkinson. Page was hijacked to promote a non-notable organization. • Gene93k (talk) 18:58, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Cheers, Riley 00:06, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Revert to the transwiki per above and semi-protect the page if needed. - Mr X 00:57, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I have reverted some iouea.org spam (by the same IPv6 user) at List of modern channelled texts. הסרפד (Hasirpad) [formerly Ratz...bo] 03:57, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Promotional. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 22:55, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Patchy1 12:41, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as Fringe nouvelle. Mangoe (talk) 12:59, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Reads more like an advertisement -RoseL2P (talk) 14:01, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Revert to soft redirect: all the above "delete" arguments are valid, but ignore the fact that this was once a legitimate page, as discussed above. Perhaps some level of edit-protection is necessary per MrX. הסרפד (Hasirpad) [formerly Ratz...bo] 23:43, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. postdlf (talk) 22:58, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yatton Rugby Club[edit]

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

Non-notable village rugby team. Fails the general notability criteria for organisations, and specifically Wikipedia:WikiProject_Rugby_union/Notability. Bob Re-born (talk) 12:36, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep- This article is notable and should not be deleted as the team is in a league that has a page on Wikipedia and has a Reference and a reference that is not list yet. (Andwhy1 (talk) 12:43, 22 December 2012 (UTC))[reply]

The league does NOT have a Wikipedia page and the articles single reference makes no mention of a rugby club?Theroadislong (talk) 18:36, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- Appears to fail notability for Rugby teams, which is a key standard for rugby clubs. Just because a league is notable, and a team inside the league exists, it does not mean the team itself is notable (✉→BWilkins←✎) 13:00, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If the club was indeed founded almost 50 years ago, then it certainly wont be disappearing in the near future. Its unfortunate that the original editor did not provide more independent sources to expand on the history section, but nevertheless...Weak keep -RoseL2P (talk) 13:40, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid that "it certainly wont be disappearing in the near future" is not evidence of notability. My parents lived in a house that has existed for several centuries, and probably won't be going away in the near future. However, it is just an old farm house, of no notability, and we don't have an article about it, nor should we. JamesBWatson (talk) 13:56, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- Amateur village clubs like this are not encyclopedic. Appears to fail the relevant notability guideline by a long way. --Michig (talk) 15:36, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The club is not amateur it plays in a league that climb up to the top and could be a bigger than Bristol. • Andwhy1 (talk) 16:11, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Are you claiming that the Tribute South West 2 West League, a league that appears to be outside the top ten tiers of English Rugby Union, is a professional league? --Michig (talk) 18:47, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- It has not been the subject of multiple published, non-trivial, secondary sources which are reliable, intellectually independent and independent of the subject.Theroadislong (talk) 16:02, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Rugby union-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:21, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no WP:reliable sources - the only reference given is to a freeweb site and does not even mention the club. The league is not a fully professional league by some margin. Remove the empty sections and all that is left is a statement it exists. noq (talk) 11:37, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Similar to this AfD there are slim-pickings out there on the internet so again unless there's a book that someone has, I'm thinking this isn't notable. Go Phightins! 15:13, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. postdlf (talk) 22:53, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Baputty Haji[edit]

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

We definately need better sourcing than this to write an article. A trawl through google, Google books and Google News found nothing usable and this has had a month to improve. I think this fails GNG and N so here we are. Spartaz ^Humbug! 11:24, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:09, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:09, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:09, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails notability. The source on the article is about the organization the person is founder of rather than the person himself. Torreslfchero (talk) 21:59, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, even if all facts listed in the article can be referenced to reliable sources, I do not see why this person is notable.--Ymblanter (talk) 09:46, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unfortunately. Given what was in the article before I scrubbed it, I actually do think the person may be notable, but it's entirely likely that the sources we need are not in English. I think we have to delete this and wait to see if either English sources or someone who can find non-English sources appears. Qwyrxian (talk) 09:46, 27 December 2012 (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. WP:SNOW postdlf (talk) 15:41, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

List of blessings in disguise[edit]

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

This list can be nothing other than subjective WP:OR. It was PRODded, but deprodded without comment by the original editor. There might be a list of "Events which have been called "a blessing in disguise", with references, but even that would not be a useful contribution to the encyclopedia. PamD 09:21, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Correction I stated that the article was deprodded without comment because the edit summary just said "fix", but the editor did make a comment on the talk page. PamD 10:26, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: the disambig page Blessing in Disguise formerly contained only music and drama items, even though examples of these exist in the real world.

For example, the disasterous crash of the Zeppelin LZ 4, an early airship, resulted in a tidal wave of financial donations from the public which put the venture onto a sound financial position, making the disaster a blessing in disguise'. This should be put onto a page(s) with blessing in disguise in its title, and the Zeppelin page should be make to refer to these Blessing in Disguise page(s).

And there are other real examples, which can be added as they are noticed.

The List of blessings in disguise contains a number of items organised into categories. Tabletop (talk) 09:49, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Strong, undisguised delete. Pretty much any disaster short of the end of the world (which, by the way, is a little tardy, no?) benefits somebody somewhere. Should we list them all? Clarityfiend (talk) 10:30, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. When it comes down to it, the definition of "blessing in disguise" is something that is ultimately a matter of personal opinion. Some think that a BID is something that initially looks bad but is revealed to be something good. Others think it's something that is bad that eventually produces something that is for the greater good. The point is that the definition is incredibly loose and by the above argument over a zeppelin crash I could make the argument that the Holocaust was a "blessing in disguise" because it produced several wonderful pieces of literature, art, and plays that were inspired by people's experiences or written during the Holocaust. You might initially think that's a big of an overly severe example, but that's pretty much the epitome of what ClarityFiend's argument states. Everything everywhere could have something that could be considered a "blessing in disguise" by someone. There is no benefit that would be seen as so overwhelmingly good that it would be a unanimous blessing in disguise. Because the definition itself is so loose and the qualifications for fitting that definition (assuming we could all agree on an exact definition) would be even more debatable, there is no reason why this page passes notability guidelines.Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 10:45, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I also argue against the concept of an article entitled Events which have been called "a blessing in disguise" because at what point would an event merit a mention on a page like that? Would it make the list if one source comments that it is? Ten sources? Even if the one person mentioning it was a very notable person (such as the Pope or President Obama), would that really make it worth mentioning in the list if nobody else says the same or comments on the notable person's comment? It's just such a loose criteria for lists such as these and it's unlikely that we'd find enough people commenting on the "blessing in disguise" for there to be any true consensus. It'd ultimately be an article based on opinion as to what merits being placed in the article and what wouldn't.Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 10:52, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

BTW The case could be made that the exposure of the Holocaust inspired a world-wide reaction against racism and religious bigotry that continues today, and has made life better for millions of people. Kitfoxxe (talk) 22:22, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete Overly subjective OR. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 13:00, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

obvious delete Indiscriminate and simply opinion. Mangoe (talk) 13:03, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - this list's criterion is fundamentally indefensible and indiscriminate, so it must go. Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:03, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:57, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I just added Wiktionary's definition to the Blessing in disguise page. Now readers will know what the expression means. As others have said it is not WP's job to document how the expression has been used, or provide examples. Kitfoxxe (talk) 22:20, 22 December 2012 (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 Dubstep. J04n(talk page) 17:17, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Electrostep[edit]

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

I have nominated this page for deletion as it is unsourced material which many readers will find controversial. There is a lot of disagreement regarding electronic dance genres, and it is best to wait for the term to become established over time than to create an unprofessional page. If you do manage to find suitable references, it would be a good idea to plan it out before creating a page, to ensure that it is formal and the information included is substantial. Thanks. DJUnBalanced (talk) 20:36, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I completely agree. --JoelRussell - Talk Contribs 20:42, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Redirect To Dubstep, if anything. Doesn't seem to be widely used. Maybe a WP:HOAX? §FreeRangeFrog 21:08, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This AfD was not added to the AfD log when it was first nominated, I have added it to today's log. -- Patchy1 08:48, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Dubstep. Not worth an article, but the term is used, so let's redirect somewhere useful to the reader. --Michig (talk) 15:40, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:54, 22 December 2012 (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. Plausibly meets WP:N, balanced-ish headcount. Wily D 12:10, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Robb Alvey[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

There is also a related MFD going on about a draft page. Earlier tonight I speedied this as a G4 recreate of a deleted article, but a user asked that I undelete because they say they made substantial changes. I'm still not seeing a claim to notability, though. The sources used mostly mention Alvey because they're interviewing him about roller coasters or games that the articles are really about (e.g. [7][8][9]). Some of the articles go into more detail about him, e.g. 'here's how he became a roller coaster expert', but I suspect scarcely more than is written in this article can ever be written and referenced. Delete. delldot ∇. 08:23, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I'm the user that asked delldot to restore the article and I have been working on improving it. The subject, Robb Alvey, has been covered extensively in a number of news sources because of his activities with roller coasters, such as:

Christopher Kompanek (August 4, 2012). "High times". New York Post. Retrieved December 20, 2012.

Lee Filas (August 14, 2010). "A Venomous Debate". Daily Herald. Retrieved December 20, 2012.

Bianca Clare (April 1, 2011). "Ride reviewer on a roll". Gold Coast Mail. Retrieved December 21, 2012.

Not to mention that there's a significant amount of coverage written about his roller coaster website and the international tours he hosts. He was also host and expert on the Insane Coaster Wars television series. He is also a longtime video game producer at Activision, having worked on a number of games. I think all of this more than adds up to show notability. Silver seren^C 08:33, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note I just found this. Looks like canvassing may have been involved in the prior AfD. We should look out and make sure it doesn't happen this time. Silver seren^C 09:14, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is at least the second or third time that Silver has attempted to skirt consensus of deletion on this page. It still does not meet notability and it belongs deleted with the masses of other self promoters that do not have a place on Wikipedia. I suspect the article may even have been self created. In fact, this should be deleted speedily along the timeline of discussion from the rogue skirting of deletion activity of Silver from this page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Abandoned_Drafts/Robb_Alvey The "citations" include little more than his own hearsay based on his word of mouth and published on his website. Self promotion has no place on an academic website as Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.15.41.85 (talk) 17:27, 22 December 2012 (UTC) — 70.15.41.85 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Keep there is enough sources from reliable sources to establish notability. The current article should be history merged with the wikiproject copy and possible the deleted versions of the article. GB fan 17:49, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ I suggest this article be merged back to the draft version that was about to be deleted in order to avert this backhanded action by Silver to skirt deletion on its own AfD. The conversation on that page was wiped clean by the action by Silver to create a mainspace page on this non-notable subject. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Abandoned_Drafts/Robb_Alvey — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.15.41.85 (talk) 18:33, 22 December 2012 (UTC) — 70.15.41.85 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

You are only supposed to say your vote once in an AfD. Silver seren^C 21:21, 22 December 2012 (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) 19:52, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:52, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Delete for the same reasons mentioned in the drafts AfD and the previous article AfD as well, we are on three or four AfDs that Silver has attempted to avoid deletion on this article. ~~Julser1~~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Julser1 (talk • contribs) 02:06, 23 December 2012 (UTC) — Julser1 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Except, during the previous AfD, the article looked like this, which clearly doesn't properly represent the notability of the subject. Therefore, the users commenting back then were not informed about such sources and the current article does a much better job expressing them. So you need to make an argument based on the current article related to the notability guidelines and not reference old discussions. Silver seren^C 03:41, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It still faces the same notability issues. Self promotion, not of notability for Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.15.41.85 (talk) 07:54, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Self promotion has nothing to do with notability. We could have the article entirely be written by the subject themselves and it wouldn't matter, so long as they were notable. It just means that the article needs to be cleaned up to make sure it reads neutrally. And it clearly meets the General Notability Guideline. Silver seren^C 08:21, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"In particular, if reliable sources cover the person only in the context of a single event, and if that person otherwise remains, or is likely to remain, a low-profile individual, we should generally avoid having a biographical article on that individual." I suspect these articles were the result of him contacting the agencies to attempt to advertise his business. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.15.41.85 (talk) 18:35, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The sources aren't covering him in the context of a single event. None of the stuff about him is an event. Furthermore, he is clearly not a low-profile individual, considering he's a video game producer that has done a ton of interviews. And your opinion about him is nice, but you have no proof about the sources. Silver seren^C 19:09, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep The subject has been cited in a number of books [10], has been on TV news [here is CNBC https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=czm7mOqZ-pA], and in print [here is the Philadelphia Inquirer - http://articles.philly.com/2011-08-05/news/29854830_1_hard-core-coaster-enthusiasts-roller-coaster-kingda-ka - and here is IGN - http://www.ign.com/articles/2004/04/17/call-of-duty-united-offensive-interview]. A few minutes on Google can easily confirm the subject's notability; a few more minutes editing the article could bring it up to grade. And Adoil Descended (talk) 01:43, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Gah! *facepalms* I didn't even think to check Google Books. That was silly of me. I'll go look through it tomorrow and add the useful sources, as there do seem to be quite a few. Silver seren^C 08:16, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: in order to keep everything together in one place, I have carried out a history-merge with the version that was in Abandoned Drafts and closed the MfD on that as delete. The whole history of the article is now in this version, and this AfD can decide its future. JohnCD (talk) 23:28, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That works. I just wanted to make sure that I kept up all of the attribution and everything, so the license wouldn't be violated. But a history merge fixes all that. Thanks. Silver seren^C 11:25, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This subject is not notable to the point of necessitating a Wiki Article. This subject has gone through deletion and been approved several times and the result is still the same. This subject does not necessitate an article on Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.249.200.232 (talk) 22:15, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Another IP! Hello, welcome to Wikipedia. While your opinion is appreciated, you unfortunately haven't backed up your statement with any of the notability rules or other guidelines that Wikipedia uses to determine whether articles should be kept or deleted in an Articles for Deletion discussion. Without those backing rules, your opinion remains just an opinion with no support. Silver seren^C 00:11, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WP: A:7 seems to be the main issue with this article. The importance factor seems to be lacking. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.249.200.232 (talk) 00:38, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I already explained above why he's important. His video game producer credits would be enough by themselves to give him notability. Silver seren^C 01:01, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Although he has received a number of mentions for his roller coaster travel agency, there doesn't seem to be much press about him personally - nothing that goes beyond the trivial mentions that will give us a reason to allow his bio to stick. Does not meet WP:ANYBIO — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.249.200.232 (talk) 03:12, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I already represented sources up above. Sources like this are specifically about him and his job, which includes his website. Furthermore, there are a number of sources interviewing him about his job as a video game producer. These are not mentions, they are the entirety of the articles. Silver seren^C 03:31, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

An article from an obscure australian paper does not work. The mentions in articles about his travel agency are no different than when AAA travel agents plug their latest 7 day all inclusive trip to the Caribbean or Disney, not of importance or notability to be a subject on Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.249.200.232 (talk) 04:02, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's a nice opinion there, but the articles are entirely about him, regardless of whether you think they are "plugged" or not since you have no proof in that regard. The sources do not add up to notability, per the General Notability Guideline. Silver seren^C 04:33, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's a nice opinion there, but there is only one article that is entirely about him, and that is an obscure Australian paper. The other few have some blurbs in them and do not add up to notability, per the General Notability Guideline in addition to him clearly not making WP:ANYBIO and not in line with WP:A7 — 67.249.200.232 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 16:43, 27 December 2012 (UTC).[reply]

Whether or not he meets the General Notability Guidelines is a matter of opinion. You are of the opinion that he does not and I am of the opinion that there is enough coverage that he does meet the guideline. As far as WP:A7 is concerned, that does not apply because it has nothing to do with sources. It only has to do with the existence of a credible claim of significance. The article does make a credible claim of significance as multiple sources call him a roller coaster expert. GB fan 17:05, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I would also suggest that being a producer for a major video game company (Activision) would be enough for the article to not be eligible for A7. That in itself may or may not be enough for the article to survive deletion but A7 sets a lower bar than notability and this article does not meet that criteria.--64.229.167.20 (talk) 22:26, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There is nothing anywhere that says he was a major producer with Activision, unsubstantiated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.249.200.232 (talk) 00:03, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The article does not say he is a major producer for Activision, it says he is a producer for activision. There are two sources in the paragraph that you removed that says he is a producer for activision. GB fan 00:18, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Taking a closer look that may not be right after all. The Boy and his blob article does mention him as producer but the only reference to Actvision is a question of whether or not Activision`s co-founder David Crane (the creator of the original games) was involved. Since Activision seems to be not involved in this project he most likely was involved with one of the other companies that made that game (Majesco the producer or WayForward the developer). The second link does involve Activision but it lists Alvey as the senior producer of Gray Matter Studios (the developer of the game) and not Activision (the producer) I stil believe there is enough to keep the article but it appears that it will need to be corrected to some extent.--64.229.167.20 (talk) 01:09, 28 December 2012 (UTC)--64.229.167.20 (talk) 01:09, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that, over his career as a video game producer, he's worked with a number of different companies and groups. Producers are one of the few kinds of people that have that sort of freedom, since they often aren't tied to just one company. This should probably be represented in the article and the section should be reworded to reflect that, since he did work with Activision for a time, as the sources note, but he appears to currently be working with WayForward Technologies. It would just take a bit of sorting through the games to find the timeline of who he's worked with, though. Silver seren^C 03:37, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Just to be clear I am not calling for deletion but simply that the article should be rewritten to clarify what companies he was a producer for and when.--64.229.167.20 (talk) 00:49, 29 December 2012 (UTC)--64.229.167.20 (talk) 00:49, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - previous AfD consensus was DELETE, lack of notability. Per computing articles guidelines, articles on blogs or forums are subject to deletion. significant portions of his visibility is as a forum operator. Arguably, his other aspects, video game producer and roller coaster 'expert' result in high profile behavior for self-promotion, but overall notability is still low. Minimal media coverage, even in trade media does not confer general notability.

Scubasteve442 (talk) 10:20, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, new editor. Welcome to Wikipedia. I'm glad you decided to join this discussion with your first edit. However, as you should know from reading the above discussion, the article that the previous AfD was considering was one that didn't have any proper references and the Delete decision was decided because of that. The current article is far different from that past version and more properly represents the notability of the subject.

It should also be noted that this is not a Computing article, but a biography of a living person, which means that the rules for the subject's notability would fall under WP:Notability (people). Within this, it is clear that the subject passes the basic guideline handily from the available references.

And as I noted in above discussion, claims of self-promotion need to be backed up with proof, otherwise they are just claims. Lastly, it is also quite clear that the media coverage is not minimal, but actually fairly expansive on the subject and spans a period of years. Silver seren^C 10:51, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No, I did not say that the article is self-promotion, rather that his media mentions are mostly self-promotion of his web presence. His general notability is nil, based on the small sampling of mentions in trade articles. His primary presence in media is from his hobby activity, roller coasters. His more notable contribution is as a video game producer, but he has virtually no media visibility as such. Also, as currently written, article seems to be out of date again, records show he no longer resides in California. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Scubasteve442 (talk • contribs) 19:30, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The two of you seem to be contradicting each other. You're saying that his coverage in trade articles doesn't give the subject notability and, below, 67.249 says that there aren't any sources from trade periodicals, so he's non-notable.

However, if you actually look at the sources, you'd see that they are mainstream news periodicals. Furthermore, a Google Books search brings up coverage like this. Not to mention gaming periodical coverage like this, this, and this. Silver seren^C 00:03, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

An article from an obscure Australian paper, and mentions in one or two other random stories does not cover "significant coverage." I also do not see a single source from a theme park "periodical." Also, no sources note him working for Activision. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.249.200.232 (talk) 15:43, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There are far more than mentions in the other sources. And coverage from subject specific periodicals isn't required. In fact having general news coverage is far more representative of notability, since the coverage isn't only from niche publications.

Secondly, you are being too literal. Alvey works for Gray Matter Interactive which is owned by Activision and they were specifically approached by Activision to work on the Call of Duty expansion. The article could certainly use some more clarification in that regard but he definitely worked with Activision. Oh, and thanks for having me go look for more sources, because I found a good one. Silver seren^C 00:12, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep there appears to be enough coverage in mainstream sources to justify an article and the previous AFD is irrelevant to this discussion since this article is vastly improved compared to the version that was deleted previously.--64.229.167.20 (talk) 01:21, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Still does not meet notability to be a subject on Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.249.200.232 (talk) 19:17, 29 December 2012 (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. MBisanz ^talk 01:58, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Mike Ricci (fighter)[edit]

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

Notability has not been established. Not nearly enough fights especially in top tier. Peter Rehse (talk) 02:33, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 02:38, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:MMANOT. --TreyGeek (talk) 04:04, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ricci is given good secondary coverage here http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/mma/news/20121213/mike-ricci/, here http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/video/mike-ricci-on-mmajunkiecom-radio/1851158127001 , and here http://ca.news.yahoo.com/montreal-mma-pros-gsp-macdonald-ricci-weigh-fighting-160448560--spt.html

WP:MMANOT says mutliple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject. So I think Ricci should stay. I would also like to cite WP:TUF

Keep PortlandOregon97217 (talk) 06:44, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - has multiple fights to show notability. Has fought in Bellator and the UFC, therefore passing WP:MMANOT, especially when you consider he's fought in the Ultimate Fighter too and is a runner-up. Not many fighters can claim to have made it to the finals of the Ultimate Fighter. Is still with the company, so he'll only continue to have more UFC fights in the coming months. Silly nomination, imo. Paralympiakos (talk) 15:58, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - If the fight record is correct this fighter fails the WP:MMANOT fighters test. Specifically failing the support of notability 1 (Only reference listed in article from fight 2 years ago), notability 2 (has not fought for the highest title of a top tier MMA organization), and notability 3 (Fought at least three (3) fights for top tier MMA organizations). Notability is enduring and I notice that he's listed in an event that occured last night, so it's reasonable to assume that there'll be a burst of coverage about him in context of The Ultimate Fighter 16, but that does not make him notable enough for a stand alone article. Hasteur (talk) 23:13, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Very Weak Delete albeit without prejudice. The nominator is incorrect, as Ricci only fails by a single Top-Tier fight per WP:MMANOT. Nevertheless the creation of the article was technically premature and he technically requires that he wait until his third fight in a Top-Tier organization for a created article. I would have voted to Keep the article if he had another UFC fight scheduled at least, but he just had his first such fight (and second top-tier fight) 24 hours ago. If he had won his fight last night I would have still voted Keep on the grounds that he is the winner of a reality show (The Ultimate Fighter season 16 for outsiders), but he did not do that either. This article can be recreated when he passes WP:MMANOT and the previous version should be accessible then (and you can also simply copy it to your sandbox for now). Beansy (talk) 00:36, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Why is every !voter (who provides any rationale at all) quoting "MMANOT" as if it were a notability guideline? WP:ATHLETE is a notability guideline, as is WP:BASIC - both of which rely on evaluation of independent, reliable sources to determine if a subject is notable. Based on these guidelines and evaluation of the sources already in the article, this one looks like a keep. VQuakr (talk) 01:03, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Would you prefer WP:NMMA which says the same thing as WP:MMANOT in regards to MMA fighters? --TreyGeek (talk) 01:12, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly because it's the nuanced WP:SNG that has been customized for MMA fighters which we try to enforce a bit higher standard because there has been an issue in the past with all sorts of fighter articles being created. Hasteur (talk) 14:24, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It says at the top of WP:ATHLETE that exceptions can be made and also mentions using common sense. Why is the bar so low for boxers at WP:NBOX that they only have to appeared on one primetime or PPV Showtime/HBO event? MMA fighters must appear in 3? I think an exception could be made for Ricci because common sense says that he is going to get that third fight scheduled in the near future. Why go through the hassle when you know he is going to get the fight and this is doing to be be brought up again? PortlandOregon97217 (talk) 02:01, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OTHERSTUFF. We're considering a MMA fighter here. Think the MMANOT essay is wrong, open a discussion there explaining a good reasoning. In the mean time we're evaluating based on the guidelines we have currently Hasteur (talk) 15:16, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep — Only two bouts for top-tier organizations, the article fails WP:NMMA, but it can meet WP:GNG. He was a TUF runner-up (he will certainly fight again in the UFC), the only thing missing is more sources (more prose would also be good). If anyone can, please add more reliable sources (mainly in section "The Ultimate Fighter"). Poison Whiskey 02:23, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

he will certainly fight again - That's WP:CRYSTAL. For all we know he may fall and break his neck, thereby ending his MMA career. There's a reason why 3 appearances in a top tier MMA event are required so as to ensure that notable fighters are in the encyclopedia. Hasteur (talk) 15:16, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

For all we know he may fall and break his neck - That's much more uncertain than my statement. He still can meet WP:GNG, just need more sources. Poison Whiskey 15:33, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep He's got his 3 notable fights. More so if you count Colton Smith who is a TUF winner. Also fought for a title in a top tier organization, and that title is "TUF 16 Winner". JonnyBonesJones (talk) 07:17, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm counting Bellator 14 and The Ultimate Fighter: Team Carwin vs. Team Nelson Finale as 2 events. I note the MMANOT does not determine if Tournements like TUF count as an individual event or multiple events. Hasteur (talk) 15:16, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - MManot is not policy, WP:ATHLETE is. Sure there is an mma part but it does say at the very top "It is a generally accepted standard that editors should attempt to follow, though it is best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply". This is one of those cases. He passes Wikipedia:GNG so lets have some common sense. PortlandOregon97217 (talk) 04:52, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - Would you like to check your bias? HINT: You should. Considering that the essay is a rough consensus established by several long time editors from both within and without the MMA project, been cited by administrators in closing, and upheld by administrators at DRV, it's reasonable to use it as a strong check as a Specific Notability Guideline for MMA based articles. Hasteur (talk) 12:48, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There is nothing wrong with citing an essay in the interest of being concise - basically saying, "I think this subject is/ is not notable for the reasons outlined here." This should not be confused (as you seem to be) with an actual guideline. Proposed guidelines need broad review by the community before being promoted, not local consensus by a Wikiproject. VQuakr (talk) 17:18, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hastuer: I guess I am biased towards the fact that he had exhibition fights on Spike TV outside of the TUF finale and the Bellator card, and the fact that he is mentioned in the yahoo news article in the title along with GSP and Rory Mcdonald would beef up that bias. I guess being on TV aand in print one too many times leads to a bias where I think people start becoming notable. Please explain to me WHy Ricci's article should be deleted other than I am biased

edit:Hmm, I think I know what you mean. Even if I have fought (and for all you know I could be full of hot air. Anyone can get an amateur fight. One only has to call the local bush league, or go down to the bar after last call) I think it is ok if I point out a couple of independent sources along with some commentary. Are you an MMA fan Hasteur? If so you should check your bias. PortlandOregon97217 (talk) 17:33, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I also want to point out that Mike Ricci fought for a title in a top tier organization, and that title is "TUF 16 Winner". JonnyBonesJones (talk) 01:51, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment — Here's the source for my statement (he will certainly fight again in the UFC), he is still on the UFC roster: link.

Also, on a quick search i found some sources for the article:

lot of prose can be added to the article. Poison Whiskey 21:23, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:50, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep But a weak one. Out of 10 fights, only 7 wins, 4 notable opponents and 2 notable events. But the potential is there. As far as I know, he is signed to UFC and can still get a fight on a main card on FX or Fuel. Mazter00 (talk) 20:02, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete, and recreate if he fights in the UFC again. He fails WP:NMMA right now, and while he's likely to get another top tier fight, it's still WP:CRYSTAL to assume that. CaSJer (talk) 16:55, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment May I also point out that Mike Ricci is a TUF Finalist, and fought Colton Smith for the title "TUF 16 winner", which is a title for a top tier organization? JonnyBonesJones (talk) 01:48, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment For everyone saying he needs one more fight I say read this WP:NOTTEMPORARY, and then consider him passing Per WP:GNG. I'd say he is in and any additional fights/notability he gains only serves to increase the prosaic content of his page.

More recent coverage here — Preceding unsigned comment added by PortlandOregon97217 (talk • contribs) 02:34, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LlamaAl (talk) 07:26, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Meets WP:NMMA. Sepulwiki (talk) 12:58, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I'm confused because he has the same notability as some of the other fighters that people have wanted deleted. Why do we accept the notability criteria for 1 fighter but that same notability isn't acceptable for another. If the group was following the guidelines, then there should be some consistancy. I removed my vote to keep it, it doesn't really seem to matter. The guidelines don't seem to matter.Willdawg111 (talk) 05:29, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah I was suprised they kept Papy Abidi. It was like parting the red sea (miracle). He has drastically less notability than Ricci. I realise this is WP:otherstuff but still. this place is bonkers sometimes — Preceding unsigned comment added by PortlandOregon97217 (talk • contribs) 09:06, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I blame that on a few submit happy individuals (no fingers pointed). There were just too many AfDs at any one time to keep things clear. That is the way of things but right now on the martial art related lists there are 30 and most of them borederline. Personally resisting the submission of even really clear cases so the number has a chance to go down.Peter Rehse (talk) 09:10, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This article certainly fails WP:NMMA, but per WP:GNG and WP:SENSE i voted for keep. I'm not sure if this article will be kept, but i think it is a case to consider. Poison Whiskey 21:16, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Will certainly fight again in the UFC, TUF runner-up. Passes WP:GNG. --LlamaAl (talk) 17:30, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 18:12, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Jefferson Prep Education[edit]

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

This article fails to meet the criteria for WP:N Transmissionelement (talk) 07:24, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

((Good evening. My name is Kushal Gupta and I have co-founder of tutoringreviews.org. Our non-profit website is a platform for reviews about tutoring and language companies. We are beginning to incorporate our research in the test preparation and language industry by making valid, verifiable updates to wikipedia. We plan, especially, to make changes to the existing Princeton Review page (which is very basic indeed). We will also make draft pages for important companies who are major actors in these industries - including Advantage Testing. Since these companies are major actors in these industries, in the interests of full disclosure and transparency, we feel potential students should know as much as possible about the companys' backgrounds, history, objectives, and so forth. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tutoringreviews (talk • contribs) 07:33, 22 December 2012‎ (UTC)[reply]

Greetings, This is Kushal Gupta again, editor of tutoringreviews.org. I wanted to explain our perspective on notability of the Jefferson Prep Education institute. They have received significant buzz in the tutoring world because of their free tutoring and SAT programs at inner city schools, and because of their work for rebuilding micro-schools in Haiti. The micro-schools initiative (which I cited in the page) is notable because of the Clinton reconstruction efforts in Port-au-Prince.)) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tutoringreviews (talk • contribs) 07:40, 22 December 2012‎ (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 13:01, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:30, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:30, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as lacking sources sufficient to establish notability. ElKevbo (talk) 17:56, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I feel that this is notable because of the company's presence and leadership in the field of building micro-schools in Haiti with the Clinton reconstruction effort. This has been cited on the page (New York Social Diary fundraiser new article). Citation 4 on page — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bluekushalrajdelhi (talk • contribs) 18:47, 22 December 2012‎ (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. postdlf (talk) 22:54, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

List of UFC Lineal Champions[edit]

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

This article fails WP:NOR and the inclusion policy as its only two sources does not say nothing about the subject. The majority of the information in the article is similar to List of UFC champions. LlamaAl (talk) 07:14, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is total unsourced original research and unless it can be fully sourced to reliable sources it must be deleted as failing policy. Mt king^(edits) 07:34, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – Entirely original research. I also agree with Mtking about not deleting it if reliable sources can be found. The Anonymouse (talk • contribs) ^{[Merry Christmas!]} 07:38, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Delete all the things related to UFC on Wikipedia! But I agree on the WP:OR. Delete this and bookmark http://www.fightmatrix.com/lineal-championship-histories/ instead. Mazter00 (talk) 17:10, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

comments like this do not help. a lot of users already feel like the MMA debate is being spearheaded as a WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT issue. Consensus needs to be worked on, fanning the flames is counterproductive. Kevlar (talk) 21:38, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It was on the side, agreed. But I am right. I just read the deletion of UFC 157 (sorry for not linking), and the admin kww (well-known and quite reasonable) just proved, with the help of mtKing, that any and all future UFC events will and shall be deleted on the spot. I can think of exceptions, but that is in line of "force majour" (I probably misspelt that one). It is now 99% guaranteed that future UFC events will be deleted.

I tend to not to vote on those AfD because I know the result. With 48 votes, 50% keep votes, that is the biggest AfD debate I've seen regarding UFC events (future). When I jokingly say "Delete all the things related to UFC" I am *not* far away from the truth. Mazter00 (talk) 02:55, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

please reread kww's comments Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/UFC 157. Kevlar (talk) 19:25, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:34, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:34, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It is mostly original research. — ΛΧΣ²¹ 06:53, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Appears to be WP:OR. --TreyGeek (talk) 21:06, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Withdrawn by nominator Alan Liefting (talk · contribs). Non-admin closure. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 18:30, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

List of firearm brands[edit]

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

A short and incomplete list of firearm brands that is better covered by Category:Firearm brands and some actual prose in the firearm article. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 06:44, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:NOTDUP. Having a list article for the same topic as a category is (per WP:NOTDUP) "...considered to be complementary, not inappropriately duplicative." Furthermore, per WP:NOTDUP, "...arguing that a category duplicates a list (or vice versa) at a deletion discussion is not a valid reason for deletion and should be avoided." Makes sense, because categories cannot be sourced or elaborated upon, while articles can. Since the Firearm article is rather lengthy, this is a reasonable WP:SPINOFF of it. Northamerica1000^(talk) 07:47, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Northamerica1000. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 13:02, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Northamerica1000. G_PViB (talk) 13:13, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete: Would have been worth keeping if the individual brands were classified in a somewhat logical way -RoseL2P (talk) 13:46, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep in agreement with Northamerica1000 --Nounique names 16:02, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
keep Well defined list, no conflict between having a category and a list, as not all companies may be notable enough for a stand alone article, but could be members of the list. Gaijin42 (talk) 16:11, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This list doesn't duplicate a category because it contains more information about each brand than a category would have. As such, it's a good list. The fact that the list could be improved by having some logical classification scheme isn't a reason to delete. ~Amatulić (talk) 17:28, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Withdraw as nominator. It is substantially changed from when I nominated it for deletion. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 17:46, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 18:20, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Didier Chabi[edit]

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

Non-notable per WP:BIO. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 05:48, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:27, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:27, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:27, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:27, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:27, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as being TOO SOON. Article lists many incomplete projects. Found him on IMDB.[11] Also found two sources mentioning his work... one in De Telegraaf [12] about the fillmmker using illegal stunts and the other in Wereldjournalisten briefly discussing a film he made about Somali pirates.[13] Let his projects be completed and receive coverage before having this one back. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 03:52, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Mostly per Schmidt, who gets a good summary of it. — ΛΧΣ²¹ 07:11, 25 December 2012 (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. postdlf (talk) 22:51, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Rattie Ratz[edit]

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

Not a notable organization Flykyrskysong (talk) 13:35, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above. —Ed!^(talk) 13:59, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Promotional in nature, fails WP:CORP. Significant coverage in reliable sources not available. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 16:26, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It is a little better, but honestly, the sources are still local in nature. I will give credit where it is due (ie: to MelanieN) and strike the delete, but I really can't support keeping it either. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 17:00, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 20:38, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 20:38, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This topic has received enough coverage in reliable sources, including regional newspapers, to pass WP:ORGDEPTH:

—Northamerica1000^(talk) 00:21, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There is plenty of significant coverage available for this organization; a cursory search of Google News Archive finds dozens of references in regional Reliable Sources. The sources need to be added to the article, which currently has only one Reliable Source reference, but the fact that they exist proves notability. Don't be fooled by the cutesy name, or the fact that the organization is about pet rats. --MelanieN (talk) 00:42, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Please take another look; the article has been expanded and references added. --MelanieN (talk) 16:42, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, postdlf (talk) 05:29, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep—Per MelanieN and due to her characteristically fine rewriting. This obviously meets the GNG.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 16:18, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedily deleted by User:Jimfbleak under criterion G11 with additional comment "Essay, original research, pov". (Non-admin closure) "Pepper" @ 12:23, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Guelph Pride[edit]

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

Article is about a non-notable local Pride organization and the associated pride week they host. Reads like an advertisement. Mike (talk) 05:29, 22 December 2012 (UTC) Mike (talk) 05:29, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. No reliable or verifiable sources that are independent of the subject of the article. A good number of refs indicate "Interview", which makes this a likely candidate for WP:OR and/or WP:COI. GregJackP Boomer! 06:14, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles 00:25, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Mina Nº 7[edit]

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

Fails WP:ALBUM. I can find no discussion of this compilation album. Seems to be an attempt to host the artist's entire and extensive discography on WP. -MJH (talk) 20:08, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 01:37, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 01:37, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mediran (t • c) 04:07, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No indication that this meets WP:NALBUMS. Won't even recommend a redirect. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 06:12, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Given that the Italian article is very similar, there can't be much coverage of the album out there. Non-notable. —Andrew_stalk 06:18, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. postdlf (talk) 22:51, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Lucy Camlin[edit]

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

Non-notable youth player; references are to local newspapers and a biog. Search engine results bring up coverage that is WP:ROUTINE. This nomination has been made with regard to the guidance at [14]i wintonian ^talk 02:11, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Clearly fails WP:ATHLETE. §FreeRangeFrog 05:05, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:56, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mediran ^{talk to me!} 09:27, 15 December 2012 (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/2012 December 15. Snotbot t • c » 17:05, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mediran (t • c) 04:03, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 13:04, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the very little coverage I see is routine, fails WP:ATHLETE and WP:GNG Secret ^account 18:15, 25 December 2012 (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 Dark Adrenaline. MBisanz ^talk 01:59, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

End of Time (Lacuna Coil song)[edit]

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

Fails WP:NSONG all criteria MJH (talk) 02:18, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Dark Adrenaline. Probably not enough for a standalone article but would be worth summarising in the album article. --Michig (talk) 08:32, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The song has received quite some critical reception an media coverage even before being released. It will gain even more after its release. --Orpheuss (talk) 13:24, 10 dic 2012‎
Comment - I read all the citations, and they may support the album having an article. Only one mentions this song outside a listing, and it just says that they are making a video. There does not appear to be a repeated substantial discussion of this song. Looking on google, all I find are lyric sites and content provided by the band, nothing 3rd party. I listened to their live performance in the music store, it is a good song!. ---MJH (talk) 14:35, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Nom's analysis is invalid, debunked by the cited references. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 03:41, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:58, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:58, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mediran ^{talk to me!} 09:30, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - WP:NSONG has very direct criteria. 1. ranked on a national or significant music listing. 2. won a significant award or achievement. 3. Been covered by multiple notable musicians. So far the song has achieved none of these three criteria despite some press recognition and ultimately my reasons for a delete argument. Mkdw ^talk 09:39, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 02:49, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:NSONGS. There are a lot of references there, but when we remove the useless tweets and whatnot, what we have is a case for the notability of the album. I cannot even recommend a redirect, since it's not a plausible search term. People have got to stop assuming that notability is automagically inherited. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 03:00, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Mediran (t • c) 01:15, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

List of Indian FMCG companies[edit]

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

A non-notable list and no other such lists exist (I think the WP:OTHERSTUFF argument is valid in this case). BTW, the ref given is not a reliable source. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 09:20, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 09:40, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 09:40, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 09:40, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ per nom. WP:NOTDIRECTORY applies, too. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 14:49, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have changed my opinion to Neutral. Regradless of the importance of India as a market the list is still much more a directory than anything else. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 17:12, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Need to fix the problems if any in the list rather than deleting the list altogether.Shyamsunder (talk) 08:54, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps you might do that, then? If you feel it is notable, do that thing. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 11:02, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep India has one of the largest consumer markets in the world. This list has relevance to the Economy of India. I have cleaned up the article, added an intro para, and 6 citations from known sources. References are from reliable industry sources. Arunram (talk) 16:57, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 02:47, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Satisfies WP:LISTPURP as a functional navigational index of articles. That said, the article is incomplete and needs more sources, which can be accomplished by editing. Northamerica1000^(talk) 07:37, 22 December 2012 (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. Lord Roem's dissent is duly noted, but the consensus appears to be that the news coverage here agrees with SwisterTwister's and Presidentman's view that the coverage is too routine in nature for the subject to merit a biography. Sjakkalle (Check!) 18:30, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Amos Williams[edit]

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

Fails WP:POLITICIAN as subject lost only election entered (back in 2006). Not found to be notable in any other areas. | Uncle Milty | talk | 01:09, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 03:41, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 03:41, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 03:41, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 03:41, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Google News archives found several results, indicating he was best known for being based in Detroit and the 2006 nomination (they also mention that he is an Army veteran and former police officer), one of the links, this one offers several details about him. This news article notes he "raised little money and trails badly in the polls" and this isn't surprising if he only gained 46%. The article claims he was the first black candidate for Michigan Attorney General in 1974 which is significant but the article can't be kept simply because of this. This news article offers details about his police career and mentions his wife is a judge. Another news article from the time of his nomination here offers additional details about his life but all of this is insufficient. SwisterTwister talk 19:53, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:GNG--Nixie9 (talk) 19:05, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I think his political run as the first black candidate for a high-ranking state office is notable; it received significant news coverage at the time, which noted him because of the uniqueness of his run for office. Under WP:POLITICIAN, for someone who was unelected, the requirement is only significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the article subject himself. While a Google search finds only his website (obviously, not independent) a deeper look demonstrates far more significant news coverage from 2006. -- Lord Roem (talk) 20:35, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 02:43, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete I see Lord Roem's point, but I lean towards his cited articles being WP:ROUTINE. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 13:06, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't think WP:ROUTINE applies here; the coverage is not just "here is who's on the ballot", but "hey, there's something interesting that's getting attention here". For example, this article quotes Howard Dean, former DNC Chair, about mobilizing and increasing African-American turnout. It also mentions his race as uniquely important/interesting about the nomination. With this, we have an independent source which speaks to the the Attorney General race in a non-routine way. Lord Roem (talk) 20:01, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - The article cited talks about Dean's comments and only briefly mentions Williams. It's not about him. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 15:03, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - Yes, that's true, but it's certainly not 'routine' or 'run-of-the-mill' coverage. He's mentioned specifically in the context of Democrats trying to create a more diverse ticket. Lord Roem (talk) 07:59, 26 December 2012 (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. WP:SOFTDELETE The Bushranger _{One ping only} 18:22, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Brainiak Records[edit]

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

A defunct UK record label that appears to fail WP:N and WP:CORPDEPTH. Searches in GNews archives and Books are only providing passing mentions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 03:37, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Please do not use "defunct" as one of the reasons for deleting an article about a business, since Wikipedia is not a Yellow Pages directory of businesses currently in operation, and since notability is not temporary. The only question is "Was it ever notable?" Edison (talk) 16:24, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Edison. "Defunct" was used simply to describe the label, and is not a deletion rationale. Per WP:NTEMP, "once a topic has been the subject of "significant coverage" in accordance with the general notability guideline, it does not need to have ongoing coverage." Northamerica1000^(talk) 00:53, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 20:06, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 20:06, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Cheers, Riley 00:53, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete - I was able to find a couple of passing mentions (here and here in old Billboard magazines and here in Blues & Soul) but nothing that could be considered "significant coverage". I'm conscious that the subject was an independent label that operated through the 80s and 90s and closed more than 10 years ago. Online coverage is unlikely and there's just no way of knowing if contemporary media coverage (from the 80s and 90s) would been enough to consider the subject notable. Happy to consider anything anyone finds but for now, there's no evidence this was notable then (per WP:NOTTEMP) or is notable now (per WP:GNG or WP:CORPDEPTH). Cheers, Stalwart111 02:06, 7 December 2012 (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) 00:57, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 02:40, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 00:28, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. However, if any of the records are found to be notable, I suggest keeping this page and expanding the section on that particular record. 1292simon (talk) 00:36, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles 00:28, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew Grayham Doe[edit]

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

This author doesn't meet the notability guidelines, no significant coverage from reliable sources. He gets zero news archive hits. Article also seems designed to promote his website. Morefoolhim 00:54, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 03:32, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 03:32, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 03:32, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails WP:GNG. The refs are essays and a non-editorial interview.--Nixie9 (talk) 19:07, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Lacks WP:SIGCOV and other notability requirements.Crtew (talk) 20:57, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 02:39, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Mediran (t • c) 01:11, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Frankstown Township Shooting[edit]

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

Contested PROD. Fails WP:EVENT and Wikipedia is not a news repository. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 02:23, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Seems to be just your run-of-the-mill local news story. Not notable enough for an article, and it fails WP:EVENT. Lugia2453 (talk) 02:46, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This event is worldwide in distribution: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2251849/Pennsylvania-church-shooting-leaves-4-dead-2-injured-happened-NRA-press-conference.html?fb_action_ids=505732662780332&fb_action_types=og.likes&fb_source=timeline_og Jogershok (talk) 05:26, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:59, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:59, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:59, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. A newsworthy event, but not an encyclopedia-worthy one. Peacock (talk) 19:01, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: What's the rush? I, too, oppose deletion, at this point it time. Why is this story any less important than the 2012 Empire State Building shooting? Let's give it some time to unfold before rushing to delete it? Elizabeth Blandra (talk) 22:35, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per above, lets wait a few days to see if it is notable enough. JayJay^{Talk to me} 01:18, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - WP:NOT#NEWS, its a local news story being hyped because of the newport story. We don't have an article for every multi-person murder that happens in Chicago, Detroit, Los Angeles, Moscow, Dehli...you name it. Just because this murder happened in some remote town and killed a woman decorating a church, does not make it encyclopedic. -Marcusmax(speak) 01:25, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment What's the rush? I am saying here that no, I don't want every multiple shooting in Pennsylvania in Wikipedia, but this particular situation I want to wait and see if this story has "legs" after we know more details, or not. For example, is there a mental health aspect to this event? A day after the event, no way to tell. --DThomsen8 (talk) 14:07, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As a notable event that is significant enough for an article. AutomaticStrikeout (T • C) 03:48, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Clearly notable based on sources. Everyking (talk) 00:14, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A notable event with good documentation. We are still awaiting any information about motivation or mental illness. --DThomsen8 (talk) 00:35, 29 December 2012 (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. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 08:25, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Kidz Bop 28[edit]

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

Non-notable album, not confirmed, speculative, also see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kidz Bop 27 I don't think we should create heaps of pages in a numbered series, we haven't got anywhere near 28 so this article should be recreated at a later date if and when more is known. Passengerpigeon (talk) 02:04, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Unsourced speculation. WP:CRYSTAL. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:15, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete highly speculative. There is no great certitude that this will ever see the light of day. Ohconfucius ^{ping / poke} 02:16, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete G3 (see user contributions). Tbhotch.^™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 02:29, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Also, Kidz Bop 1x1 should be deleted. Tbhotch.^™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 02:30, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:CRYSTAL and WP:NALBUMS. - Mr X 02:48, 22 December 2012 (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. "Merge and delete" is not a possible outcome as it would create WP:COPYVIO. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 18:23, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

John Belk: North Carolina Textile Worker[edit]

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

No indication of notability. Belk was interviewed for the Federal Writers Project; there are no sources about him except the interview itself. The article's other sources don't actually mention Belk and are used to support original synthesis. The article is apparently part of some sort of class project; see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Articles for creation#Something fishy here... Huon (talk) 01:59, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:51, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, along with any others of the same ilk. The article doesn't even claim notability, let alone show it. David_FLXD (Talk) 04:42, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete being interviewed by the Federal Writers Project doesn't confer notability - they interviewed thousands of people. This guy is just a textile worker and doesn't appear to have any other significance. Much of the article does appear to be synthesis. Hut 8.5 17:15, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Consider merging some of the content on the Federal Writers Project to that article, then delete this as completely non-notable. --Michig (talk) 06:59, 29 December 2012 (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. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 08:27, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Kidz Bop 26[edit]

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

Non-notable album, not confirmed, speculative, also see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kidz Bop 27 Passengerpigeon (talk) 01:59, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Unsourced speculation. WP:CRYSTAL. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:11, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete highly speculative. There is no great certitude that this will ever see the light of day. Ohconfucius ^{ping / poke} 02:16, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Crystal ball article. I also think all of the Kidz Bop articles that were nominated here should be deleted; they're all crystal ball articles as well. Nobody knows when any of these albums will be released (or if they'll be released at all). Lugia2453 (talk) 02:35, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, change that to speedy delete per G3 and G5, and I tagged all of the Kidz Bop articles up for deletion. Not only are they hoax articles, they were articles created by a sockpuppet of a blocked user (G5 applies in that case, right?). Lugia2453 (talk) 03:26, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion G3. Tbhotch.^™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 02:37, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete G3 as hoax as are all other articles created by this blocked user. Geraldo Perez (talk) 02:42, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:CRYSTAL and WP:NALBUMS. - Mr X 02:47, 22 December 2012 (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. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 08:24, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Kidz Bop 27[edit]

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

This is a future album with no tracks known, fails wp:album as I can find no mention of it. Also, the album is part of a numbered series whose articles could go on for infinity, this article should be left as a redlink and created when the album gains notability and some tracks are known. Passengerpigeon (talk) 01:54, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Unsourced speculation. WP:CRYSTAL. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:12, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete highly speculative. There is no great certitude that this will ever see the light of day. Ohconfucius ^{ping / poke} 02:17, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete G3 (see user contributions). Tbhotch.^™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 02:29, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Clear WP:CRYSTAL. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 02:32, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:CRYSTAL and WP:NALBUMS. - Mr X 02:48, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles 00:30, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Righteous Jams[edit]

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

Non-notable band that fails WP:NBAND. I can't locate any evidence of charting anywhere, major tours or significant third party coverage. So non-notable that Allmusic didn't even do the obligatory one paragraph blurb about them. Niteshift36 (talk) 17:03, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I found a punknews.org profile here which provides some news stories relevant to the band members but the best ones are at the bottom, the earliest (June-September 2006). While searching Google News with one of their albums, Rage of Discipline, I found two reviews here and here. A different search provided event listings which are mostly 2005 and 2006 and a different search provided a German link here for an event. I also found an interview here which mentions the band's former name Invasion. A search with Righteous Jams adding "Joey Cardona" and "Jesse Standhard" provided nothing but a search with "JC" (an alias of Cardona's) provided an event listing. A search with Elgin James provided a news article related to his arrest. One of the possible reasons for their inactivity may have been Elgin's arrest and a 2007 death at one of their concerts, although it seems they were fairly known in the beginning. Billboard shows no evidence of charting but this was probably because they never achieved significant fame. SwisterTwister talk 21:26, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Elgin is reaonably notable on his own......just not seeing it for this band. Niteshift36 (talk) 21:28, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:46, 12 December 2012 (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) 00:38, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 01:52, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete It seems that there are some reviews and coverage, but very localised. The band never came to anything much, but was 'known' for the wrong reasons. Ohconfucius ^{ping / poke} 02:29, 22 December 2012 (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. Kubigula (talk) 02:37, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Alberto Sabino[edit]

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

No working references, no claims supporting notability, google search finds nothing except links to his website and blog. Fails WP:ANYBIO Modern.Jewelry.Historian (talk) 00:43, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:57, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:57, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:57, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete/Comment He has an article on Fashionmodeldirectory.com. I personally dislike the site and find it unreliable and riddled with errors, but ~~it is still considered a "reliable source"~~ - although I avoid using it as much as humanly possible. I have done an extensive Google search excluding all the TumblrTwitterFacebookYouTubeBlogspotetcetcetc site keywords but can only find promotional sites or selling sites. He is clearly successful, but there is little actual material out there that can be used as reference. So I will have to reluctantly say delete this due to lack of sources and coverage, although I'm surprised he doesn't have more on him out there. Mabalu (talk) 23:30, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Sorry, I was thinking of fashionencyclopaedia.com, I don't think FMD is considered reliable. May be wrong on that. Mabalu (talk) 16:34, 12 December 2012 (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) 00:31, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please check this page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Alberto_Sabino Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk • contribs) 14:47, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Albertosabino, thank you for coming here to alert us of the statement on the talk page. As it was not posted on this discussion, it could easily have been overlooked. I have looked at the links you listed, and many of them cannot be accepted because they are photographs with a namecheck in the caption - although they do demonstrate that you are successful, we need extensive editorial text about you written by third parties. We cannot accept Facebook or many self-published blogs/sites because these are not considered reliable sources for Wikipedia purposes - we need text that has been written with editorial control. Having said this, these sources would pass as "reliable sources" I feel: 1; 2 needs someone who can read the language but definitely seems to be a reliable source; 3 - being chosen to represent Brazil for a BBC interview at the London Olympics is a nice factoid. I couldn't get this to open in Google Translate, but it looked like a potentially valid RS to me, although if it is a self published blog rather than an online magazine using Blogspot as a host, then it is problematic. The sources do demonstrate that you are very well known in your native Brazil, and that your jewellery is worn quite widely, BUT the problem is that apart from the Google News hit, probably, all your links are a bit borderline notability and/or unable to be accepted as a source. Also, you should not be editing your own article due to conflict of interest. Mabalu (talk) 02:22, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 01:51, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete Looks like he could be notable from what's in the bio, most of the sources are dead or unreliable. Googling the name gives little of relevance Ohconfucius ^{ping / poke} 02:34, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The 'semanier' link is recent, and seems cute, but I don't know how to read the Alexa listing. The Jornal do Brasil - Sep 29, 1991 article I think would be a prima facie valid source, IMHO. Are there more like it? It seems to be the only one in Google's archives. So, there's still not enough to establish notability, IMHO. -- Ohconfucius ^{ping / poke} 02:41, 22 December 2012 (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 The Walkabouts. MBisanz ^talk 02:00, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Cataract (Walkabouts album)[edit]

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

Fails WP:NALBUM WP:GNG. References are just listings, not reviews. MJH (talk) 02:21, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to The Walkabouts. The album would have received coverage in print sources when it was released, so likely passes WP:NALBUM. There is some (brief) coverage online, probably not enough to justify a standalone article at the moment: Allmusic, Trouser Press, Guia universal del rock. If anyone can find reviews from when it was released then it should be kept and expanded. --Michig (talk) 08:27, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:00, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Cheers, Riley 00:12, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I've added a couple of more reviews. I think that the three reviews plus cites from additional RS's are sufficient. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 06:40, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 01:50, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Having examined the series of articles in this category, and although I've seen plenty of similarly stubby articles (for other bands and artists) that aren't likely ever to go anywhere, I think it may be better to have one article named 'Walkabouts discography' instead. The critical commentary can easily be integrated into it. Ohconfucius ^{ping / poke} 02:51, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. postdlf (talk) 22:51, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sovereign Denizen[edit]

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

Unable to find any evidence that the subject meets WP:NFILM. Hut 8.5 11:22, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The nominator originally had issues with the content's copyrights, but the work actually is in the Public Domain (see article's Talk page). The article has been tagged under Wikiproject Film, so just leave well enough alone. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Journalbug (talk • contribs) 21:16, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

- Yes, I'm not complaining about the copyright problem, the concern here is that the subject doesn't meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines. That it's been tagged as part of Wikiproject Film does not make the subject notable. Hut 8.5 10:55, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:11, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Cheers, Riley 00:04, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Perhaps more emphasis should be placed on the movie being independent cinema, but I see no reason to remove it (at least now). There's a good chance that it would be re-written if it was deleted, since Rick Angell has a number of video views from legitimate media sources covering him on Youtube, including a New York Times page about his filmography [15]. That doesn't qualify him as famous, but a 5 year old documentary coinciding with current events should warrant something. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AgentOrangish (talk • contribs) 06:07, 16 December 2012 (UTC) — AgentOrangish [reply]
- Yet again, that's not evidence of notability. A likely automatically generated page which doesn't even mention the article subject certainly doesn't meet our criteria. Even if the maker of the film is notable (which I see no evidence of, and we don't have an article on him either) that wouldn't make the film notable. If a page deleted by a deletion discussion is recreated without substantial improvements it can be deleted on sight. Hut 8.5 11:09, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I see your point. The page does say, with indirect referencing, that the movie was reviewed by two notable sources (Missoula and Missoula Independent). They meet WP:NFILM. What's the problem?AgentOrangish (talk) 12:18, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - For a start notability requires actual evidence. Merely indicating that there is a source somewhere is not sufficient, you do actually have to produce the source in question. Secondly merely being reviewed doesn't necessarily confer notability, as the review would itself have to meet various criteria. NFILM gives several classes of reviews that don't qualify. Hut 8.5 18:14, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 01:45, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Checkuser note: I have just blocked Journalbug and AgentOrangish for votestacking this AFD as sockpuppets confirmed by checkuser. I

ll semi the AFD to stop further socking. Courcelles 01:47, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete This is blatantly promotional and should have been speedied. Ohconfucius ^{ping / poke} 02:54, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I appreciate people who place work in the public domain, but this fails WP:GNG and WP:NFILMS. Upload it to commons and call it a day. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 03:14, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This film apparently was released only to local public access television, which generally does not convey much notability. It was then released to the Internet where it has received only 107 views so far on YouTube. The film is not even listed in the Internet Movie Database yet. The only sources that have been provided so far are the following:
1. a link to a public access television station's program database, which admittedly does confirm that the film was shown there;
2. a page on YouTube's copyright policy, which doesn't mention this film -- I think it is only being used to explain why different editions of the film have different music, but that says nothing about this film's notability;
3. a press release (not an independent source); and
4. links to where the film can be viewed on YouTube and the Internet Archive (which indicate that the film exists, but not that it is notable).

In summary, I don't think this film meets the notability criteria at WP:NFILM yet. If it ever does, the article can be re-created (hopefully using a less promotional writing style). --Metropolitan90 (talk) 06:41, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and salt. I did a search and was unable to find anything that shows that this film is notable. I wouldn't normally recommend salting the article, but considering that one of the socks all but said that they (or someone else) would simply re-add the article after it was deleted makes me think that there's a high likelihood that someone would attempt to re-add it.Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 14:54, 23 December 2012 (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. WP:SNOW, there's no chance this will close with a consensus to delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 19:08, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

James Bond (film character)[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/James Bond (film character) was prematurely closed in September, when the article was redirected to James Bond (literary character). The same editor who created that redirect has recently recreated the article, thereby circumventing the original TfD, with no deletion review having taken place. The original rationale: "Redundant to James Bond in film", still applies. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 01:16, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It is true that a previous version of this article was nominated for deletion for being redundant to James Bond in film. As you can see at the previous AfD there was no consensus, but it was redirected it after the author of the article agreed to develop it in his sandbox. The article was therefore not deleted for covering a non-notable topic, but because the stub was redundant in its current form. Here are the two article versions for comparison:

First version that was redirected.

Second version that is fully developed.

The fact is the casting and cinematic interpretation of the James Bond character is a clearly notable topic that has been the subject of much secondary coverage. The developed version of the article is well sourced and covers the topic in an encyclopedic manner. The article is a credit to Wikipedia and there is absolutely no reason to delete it. It is neither redundant to James Bond in film or James Bond (literary character), which cover the production background of the film series and the literary background respectively. There is no significant overlap between the three articles, so deleting the article would result in the loss of substantial content. Betty Logan (talk) 01:34, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You say "at the previous AfD there was no consensus", but ignore the fact that the previous AfD was prematurely closed. By you; even though you had opposed. No content need be lost; any original content can be incorporated into the pre-existing article, to which the more recent one is redundant. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:50, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You AfD'd it because you felt the article was redundant, which it was, as it stood. The author agreed to develop it in his sandbox and he redirected the article. The article simply didn't exist any more, so I closed the AfD since I didn't see the point of continuing an AfD over an article that no longer existed; everyone has better things to do with their time. Regardless of how an AfD is closed, an editor is entitled to recreate an article that is a substantially different version, which is the case here. If SchroCat had simply recreated the old version of the article with an extra paragraph or two I would reverted it myself, but he's created a comprehensive fully sourced article that clearly covers distinctly different ground to the article you claim it is redundant to. Betty Logan (talk) 11:36, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – the present substantial article bears little relation to the one discussed (inconclusively) in September. We now have 3 substantial and completely different articles: James Bond (literary character), James Bond in film and James Bond (film character). I would recommend that editors read all 3 properly before opining. Oculi (talk) 01:37, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Point of inquiry, why does Wikipedia need a seperate article for James bond as a literary character and as a film character, it's the same bloody character, why not just one page, it's like having 2 pages for Harry Potter or Hermionie Granger as both a literary and a film character, pointless in my opinion.Seasider91 (talk) 01:46, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- It's a fair question, but not a fair comparison. The Harry Potter character appears in seven books by a single author, and has been played by a single actor. By comparison, James Bond has an extended literary canon: besides the Fleming books, you have the many continuation novels by different authors, so there is a lot of ground to cover before you even get to the film casting. By the same token, the character has been interpreted in over 20 films by seven actors for fifty years, and the casting of the James Bond part is actually something of a cultural event, and then there is all the comparative analysis to cover too. You simply don't have that scale of coverage with Harry Potter. If you were to merge the articles it would be well over 100k, so it makes sense to divide the literary heritage and the film interpretations. Betty Logan (talk) 01:56, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - There are significant differences between the seven film Bonds alone (compare Niven to Craig, for example), let alone between the interpretations of the actors and the literary Bond. Actually there are significant differences between Fleming's Bond and the character as covered by Gardner and Benson too; the James Bond (literary character) article covers those differences as well - all well covered by reliable sources, as you would expect from a GA-rated article. - SchroCat (talk) 05:57, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Not sure that this argument about duplication is correct. I definitely see the article about the film character to be a separate entity from the literary incarnation, and I think that are distinct, notable and historical enough to warrant separate coverage and examinations. It also does not seem to duplicate James Bond in film because that's a treatment of the novels as a whole in film. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 02:27, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Which "argument about duplication"? The rationale for deletion is redundancy. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:48, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What's the difference? §FreeRangeFrog^croak 18:24, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep not only the film and book canons are different, but the Bond films based on books and stories at times differ a lot. Also, as mentioned, by splitting the Bond film series contents - this, James Bond in film, List of James Bond films, Motifs in the James Bond film series - we can have focused pages on each topic instead of talking about them on a single, unwieldy and huge article. igordebraga ≠ 05:24, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep ~~Question~~ Could the nominator point out where the overlap in content lies? - SchroCat (talk) 05:42, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Simply repeating "it's redundant" doesn't cut it, and no evidence has been supplied to show where there is any overlap and I see nothing at WP:DEL-REASON that could possibly be applied here. There is clear blue water between this article and the JB in film and JB (literary character) articles. My "keep" now means that there are 16 editors who have said keep, and only the nominator who thinks the article must go. Could I suggest that the AfD is pulled and we can all get back to writing the encyclopaedia - we're moving into angels dancing on the head of a pin territory here. - SchroCat (talk) 04:03, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - As per Betty Logan. At 100k, the merged article would become bloated and a distraction as a result of the sheer length, so it does seem the right thing to do to divide the literary version from the film interpretations. It would be helpful Andy to point out the overlap, per SchroCat's concern as I am stumped on this too. -- Cassianto ^Talk 05:53, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Having redundant articles on James Bond (film character) and James Bond in film does not "divide the literary version from the film interpretations". Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:48, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep One of the most notable popular culture figures with a staggering amount of coverage in reliable sources. This article is clearly appropriate and encyclopedic. I see no major overlapping and it is not redundant at all, James Bond in film covers all aspects, a general overview by film, this article centres around characterization by actor who played James Bond and focuses on information not yet covered. Major discredit to us to nominate this article and not think that we had reasons for creating it.♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 11:37, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep James Bond in film is about the series as a whole, this article is about the specific character. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 13:09, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but Rename There's a fallacy in this title that it really isn't about the film character, but the actors that have played Bond - there's some discussion as to what elements each actor and the changing production team brought to the character, but for all purposes, there's no clear distinction made between Fleming's Bond and the movie Bond - they are meant to be the same character. My suggestion is that this really should be named "Actors who have played James Bond", or "James Bond actors" or something, which keep 99% of the content the same and fits the new approach. The alternative, which could be done, is to follow the Doctor Who example - the Doctor article describes the main character (here, the eq would be James Bond (literary character)), and then separate pages for each "iteration", like Tenth Doctor. I do think considering the film a separate character from the literary one is a falsehood and the title or article approach needs to be fixed to address that but the information is fine to keep. --MASEM (t) 14:16, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a topic notable in its own right. The scope is well-defined. I do not see it as redundant with James Bond in film because this article focuses on the character and the actors who played him. The other article follows the production of the various films over the years. Of course it will touch on the casting of James Bond in the process; topics are not going to be completely separate from each other. Erik (talk | contribs) 14:34, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, i suggested a redirect to the literary character article in the first afd, due to the articles short length, and the fact (noted above), that its the same character. We normally dont want 2 articles for one person, whether real or fictional. In this revised version, the content is so extensive, and apparently notable, that placing it as a section in the literary character makes for too long an article. Splitting the character into the two articles makes sense, as long as there are adequate links both ways. I am neutral on whether the original AFD was seen to completion properly, and feel that is irrelevant now. Good article editing should trump any procedural concerns, per WP:IAR, i suppose. Renaming as "actors playing bond" is a possibility, to be discussed at the articles talk page, but the content as a separate article should stay regardless.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 16:40, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is a notable topic, as Bond is a well-known popular culture figure. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 17:05, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:42, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:42, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep per everyone above. The editor has not "recreated the article, thereby circumventing the original TfD, with no deletion review having taken place." The editor has considerably expanded the article. - Fanthrillers (talk) 20:35, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I voted to redirect in the last discussion, but I now favor a keep. My reasoning last time was that any spin-out article would need to discuss differences between the book and film character, for instance, or other specifics to the film character rather than to the Bond character in general; the article being discussed last time contained many redundancies. Now it is improved. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 21:14, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I now see why there has to be seperate articles for this. Seasider91 (talk) 23:13, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Recommend immediate closure of AfD per WP:SNOWBALL. Erik (talk | contribs) 01:20, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - There's just no way that there isn't the coverage to support this making the notability requirements. Keep, and then probably have a discussion in regards to what Masem said above... Sergecross73 msg me 02:19, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Snow Keep. DR is not necessary here as the article is substantially different from the previous version. Even a cursory comparison reveals that James Bond in film is overwhelmingly not redundant to this article. Gobōnobō ⁺ ^c 13:28, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles 00:32, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Archos TV+[edit]

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

Non-notable product. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 09:39, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 10:04, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 10:04, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above. —Ed!^(talk) 14:18, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mediran (t • c) 00:42, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Product merely exists; no particularly notable coverage anywhere. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 02:15, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. postdlf (talk) 22:48, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Freak Seed[edit]

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

This heavy metal band from Parsippany, New Jersey appears to fail WP:BAND and WP:N. Source searches, including customized ones such as [16] and [17] just aren't providing any coverage whatsoever. Northamerica1000^(talk) 07:48, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:24, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Cheers, Riley 00:46, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No available third-party evidence to confirm their existence and notability and detailed searches including "1998", "New Jersey metal" and their albums provided nothing. Additionally, I attempted searching more information about the listed references but only found reviews at their website here. A different search provided this but it wouldn't help much or establish notability. As I was searching with their Ignition album, I found no reliable evidence so I plan to nominate that article for deletion as well. It's likely this was an indie band and probably never achieved any significant concerts or attention. SwisterTwister talk 23:50, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 06:41, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mediran (t • c) 00:39, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete For a group that existed in the mid- to late 90s I'd expect at least some coverage. I'd even expect to see a few "history of heavy metal" books that would mention them by now (e.g., from Ian Christe), but no. Fails WP:BAND. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 02:13, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete no shit, yet another myspace band! I have found precisely zero sources to attest to this band's notability Ohconfucius ^{ping / poke} 02:57, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A search for reliable sources only brought up offhand mentions here and here. I'm not seeing adequate sources to establish notability. Gobōnobō ⁺ ^c 11:28, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles 00:33, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

ProRattaFactor[edit]

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

I could not find significant coverage of the company in any reliable secondary sources. Delete per WP:ORG. Odie5533 (talk) 03:20, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 04:04, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 04:04, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 04:04, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 04:04, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - article lacks sufficient 3rd party references to establish notability; created by an SPA as possibly promotional. Dialectric (talk) 19:12, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mediran (t • c) 00:37, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Apps developer with two products which have been covered as newswire items, and few independent mentions of the developer in sources. Ohconfucius ^{ping / poke} 03:01, 22 December 2012 (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. MBisanz ^talk 21:10, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dafabet[edit]

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

Fails WP:ORG refs are all mentioning that they hired a footballer - trying to inherit notability. MJH (talk) 03:49, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:37, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:37, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete - While I see many hits (and even videos that appear to be reliable), I just couldn't find enough reliable sources. Most of the hits I find are just betting sites. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 15:50, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Theo polisme 02:46, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mediran (t • c) 00:37, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete This is blatant promotion and should have been speedied. Ohconfucius ^{ping / poke} 03:02, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I coundn't find anything to convince me that this is notable, and most of the article appears to be about Alan Shearer. --Michig (talk) 08:47, 22 December 2012 (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. I'm moving all of these to the instructor's user space. Drmies (talk) 16:38, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Della McCullers[edit]

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

A number of articles have been created recently on participants in the Federal Writers' Project. I do not see how this confers notability, and there is no claim to notability otherwise. St Anselm (talk) 00:37, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating

Delete looks like both articles were created as school projects. The biographies are of ordinary people, subjects of a writing project. May be valuable as a time capsule but not as encyclopaedic biographical entries Ohconfucius ^{ping / poke} 03:08, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:37, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:37, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles 00:34, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dave Castaldo[edit]

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

Fails WP:MUSICBIO criteria 1-12, sorry. One of his bands needs to become notable, then he can get a bio in that article. MJH (talk) 23:11, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 02:23, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:24, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:24, 13 December 2012 (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) 00:45, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mediran (t • c) 00:35, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A search on google.se returns the same CDBaby article as the only thing that could possibly establish notability, and it's not enough. Fails WP:GNG and WP:BAND. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 01:46, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles 00:35, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Braintonik[edit]

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

Non-notable company and Google News provided a minor news article here and press releases here, here and here and a reprint of a press release here. I found a review for one of their games, Strimko, here. A different search provided this which wouldn't be much help. SwisterTwister talk 05:32, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as not passing WP:GNG -- no independent, reliable in-depth coverage on the subject. As usual, lots of directory entries. The French news article doesn't appear to be centered on the company. The press releases are primary. Of course, WP:NOTINHERITED from games. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 14:15, 7 December 2012 (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) 23:46, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Quebec-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:46, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:46, 11 December 2012 (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) 00:35, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mediran (t • c) 00:35, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I can't find much out there that could possibly establish notability beyond merely existing. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 01:41, 22 December 2012 (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 Royal Canadian Air Farce#Discography. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 18:24, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Farce On A Stick[edit]

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

Subject seems to lack notability and is completely unreferenced. The article mostly consists of a track listing with no indication of significance. - Mr X 21:56, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. — sparklism ^hey! 08:49, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Cheers, Riley 00:43, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Royal_Canadian_Air_Farce#Discography - Google News and Books found nothing useful despite detailed searches "Royal Canadian Air Farce Farce On A Stick" and adding "CBC comedy". I found relevant results for the comedy troupe themselves and other CBC comedy series but nothing for this particular album. Additionally, a link to website's album page is provided at the "Discography" section. SwisterTwister talk 23:32, 7 December 2012 (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) 00:28, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mediran (t • c) 00:34, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as failing WP:NALBUMS. Yahoo search shows only the group's own site and recording listing sites. Blue Riband► 20:53, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not enough independent coverage from WP:RS. — Lil_℧niquℇ №1 ^[talk] 15:48, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Royal_Canadian_Air_Farce#Discography. Even if this doesn't merit a standalone article it is a plausible search term and should redirect somewhere useful. --Michig (talk) 06:55, 29 December 2012 (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 La Corte del Pueblo . MBisanz ^talk 21:08, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Manuel Franco (lawyer)[edit]

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

Fails WP:ANYBIO and WP:GNG Reference is to his law firm bio MJH (talk) 02:40, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for pointing this out! I have forgotten to continue adding more information to the article a long time ago. I have improved it just now, all sources coming from their official copyright holders. Once again, thank you so much! I highly appreciate it. MegastarLV (talk)

Thank you for putting more stuff about him. How can I help so the article does not get delete? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.90.218.173 (talk) 06:17, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:04, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:04, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:04, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:04, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Cheers, Riley 00:10, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:GNG because there are no independent secondary sources which confirm the content replicated entirely from his law firm bios. -- Lord Roem (talk) 20:25, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mediran (t • c) 00:33, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:ENTERTAINER - an appropriate standard since this article cites his television show. Blue Riband► 01:01, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to La Corte del Pueblo where he is mentioned, and which appears to be his main claim to fame. --Michig (talk) 07:46, 22 December 2012 (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 a soft No consensus. There was a nomination for deletion and a single editor contesting that proposition; as there were no previously contested PRODs, this is basically the equivalent of a single contested PROD. NPASR. Salvidrim! 09:11, 26 December 2012 (UTC) (non-admin closure)[reply]

Strike Suit Zero[edit]

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

WP:TOOSOON a pending video game with no references. Fails WP:GNG MJH (talk) 02:55, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep There is plenty of news in reliable sources about this game so it is not too soon and it meets the GNG. --Odie5533 (talk) 13:52, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

could you link to some of the news coverage?--199.91.207.3 (talk) 21:20, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Strike Suit Zero#Further_reading --Odie5533 (talk) 22:07, 14 December 2012 (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) 15:17, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:17, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Cheers, Riley 00:09, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mediran (t • c) 00:31, 22 December 2012 (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. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 18:26, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

ETC Bollywood Business[edit]

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

Zee Khana Khazana Channel (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Article about what seems to be a minor channel on Indian cable TV. References are mostly primary or seem to be unreliable, and ghits seem to return mostly self-generated content. I am also concerned because the creator Sociosquare (talk · contribs) seems to be an SPA that went through WP:AFC [18] unsuccessfully, so he decided to go ahead and just have a separate account Gauravmendiratta (talk · contribs) create it in articlespace (sock?). I am also nominating Zee Khana Khazana Channel, which was rejected repeatedly from AFC and is essentially the same thing. I believe this is WP:PROMO at best, and the channels simply don't seem to meet WP:GNG at least; with no prejudice to withdrawing the AFD if Indian editors with more knowledge about this can provide substantive sources. §FreeRangeFrog 21:23, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete both Articles' subjects do not meet WP:CORPDEPTH. Blue Rasberry (talk) 22:10, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 19:31, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 19:31, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 19:31, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, AutomaticStrikeout (T • C) 03:00, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to the network as the reasonable solution. Thee is no justification for removing it completely; WP:Deletion Policy is that redirects are preferred to deletion. so perhaps the nominator can explain why a redirect isn't suitable, as we do for other channels in the Zee network. DGG ( talk ) 21:46, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Nowhere did I state that a redirect is not appropriate, and I wasn't aware that we redirect the channel articles to the network. §FreeRangeFrog 22:00, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Cheers, Riley 00:08, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mediran (t • c) 00:30, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There still seems to be evidence of notability. DanLancaster (talk) 19:49, 26 December 2012 (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. postdlf (talk) 22:48, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Pierre-Alexis Dumas[edit]

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

Very heavy COI, perhaps autobiographical. Clearly written to be very flattering to the subject, although doesn't seem to rise to the level of CSD G11. Very much is made of the subjects family connections, but obviously notability is not inherited. Could be notable, but seems rather dubious. If this closes as keep, at the very least the article needs a serious rewrite for POV. Safiel (talk) 04:37, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 09:23, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 09:23, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I just noticed this nestling between all the beauty queens and wannabe models. Dumas is the artistic director for an internationally renowned status brand, just as Lagerfeld is for Chanel, and Galliano used to be for Dior. This makes him extremely notable, with international coverage about him coming up on Google News. Yes, the article needs a major rewrite and fix, but he more than passes WP:GNG. The family argument - given that Hermès is very much a family-owned and oriented brand, much like Gucci and Versace - is not really an issue here. Mabalu (talk) 12:08, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Cheers, Riley 00:21, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article has issues, but the subject is definitely notable. Ohconfucius ^{ping / poke} 03:53, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Nice catch by Mabalu; subject certainly meets WP:GNG, e.g., [19]. The article itself is a mess though. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 03:55, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles 00:38, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Kenosha County (comic strip)[edit]

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

This is a non-notable cartoon series in a regional newspaper, there is a dearth of independent reliable sources. Gareth E Kegg (talk) 00:21, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unimportant comic strip for a small local newspaper Ohconfucius ^{ping / poke} 03:55, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. A search for the comic's name and the creator's name brings up nothing I could use to show notability in the slightest. It's just not notable at this point in time and considering that it has such a limited scope in that it's only published in one paper and is more aimed to appeal to people in the area, it's unlikely that it'll meet notability guidelines anytime soon.Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:58, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:42, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The author admits the strip has little notability. (comment #12, paraphrased) Argento Surfer (talk) 21:55, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. postdlf (talk) 22:47, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Canadian Football League Cheerleading[edit]

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

There is no such thing as a CFL Cheerleading League. This is simply a list of CFL team Cheerleaders and could easily be merged into the respective team articles. Dbrodbeck (talk) 20:04, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I think the other AfDs should be mentioned with the others being nominated: WP:Articles for deletion/NHL Ice Dancers, WP:Articles for deletion/MLB Cheerleading, WP:Articles for deletion/National Basketball Association Cheerleading. Zappa O Mati 21:02, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Good idea, thanks. Dbrodbeck (talk) 21:17, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 04:03, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 04:03, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 04:03, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Cheers, Riley 00:18, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete article about league that apparently does not exist. AutomaticStrikeout (T • C) 01:46, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment as this is just cheerleading squads associated with CFL teams, perhaps this should be merged to some Canadian Football League article or subarticle? -- 65.92.180.225 (talk) 01:32, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete article implies some sort of inter-squad competition that doesn't exist. PK T(alk) 16:32, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The main issue here is whether the article violates the WP:CRYSTAL policy that prohibits unverifiable speculation on future events and products. I have reviewed the article and the debate and come to that it does. There were a few keep votes after the relisting of the AFD, but the two first don't provide a substantive argument to the main issue (Neither "Looks like an article in its early stage" and "It's a start class article, but that's no reason for it to be deleted." address the issue; the article was not put on AFD because of its lack of development.) The next two keep votes do point to sources that attempt to address the WP:CRYSTAL concerns, but a few lines is not the significant coverage that WP:N asks for. Fleet Command's analysis also shows that much of the sourcing used in the article trying to address some of the concerns is sketchy at best.

Having looked at the article, I also note that some of the inline citations point either directly or indirectly to web forum discussions, something that does not qualify as a reliable source. Kww pointing out "Wikipedia is not a collection of product announcements and rumors." from the CRYSTAL policy and Starblind pointing out that "Rumour-mongering isn't Wikipedia's job" also carries weight here.

I have considered the redirect and merge options that some suggested as an alternative, but with the target articles would contain little if any coverage of this subject matter, so Codename Lisa's concern about sending readers "on a wild goose chase" has merit. Sjakkalle (Check!) 10:34, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Windows Blue[edit]

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

This OS name and its release date are not confirmed - it's all speculation at this stage. Jasper Deng (talk) 18:07, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Codename Lisa (talk) 18:32, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Codename Lisa (talk) 18:32, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete Hello. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball; I do not even need to mention lack of reliable source. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 18:14, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Re-direct to Microsoft Windows. Google News has revealed lots of pages about this upcoming edition, and they even say that it will be released in 2013, which we're not too far away from (although it could be pushed back to 2014 if problems occur.) Is it possible that Windows 8 will still be the newest version of Microsoft Windows even as late as 2024?? Georgia guy (talk) 18:31, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Redirecting it to Microsoft Windows will only send readers on wild goose chase. Microsoft Windows has nothing on this subject. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 18:36, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Have there been any rumored versions of Windows that have been disproven altogether?? (Please triple-check your memory of Windows history. Back in 2004, Wikipedia talked about something called Windows Longhorn. Was it cancelled?? No, it was renamed Windows Vista.) Georgia guy (talk) 18:42, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Blackcomb" was not the final name of Windows 7. Windows Neptune and Cairo were both cancelled.--Jasper Deng (talk) 20:18, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Neptune is part of what we now know as Windows XP, Cairo was a code name of Windows NT 4.0.--84.194.42.17 (talk) 15:30, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~Neutral. Did anyone do a news search on this? I did, so the article is now expanded with several reliable sources so it meets the general notability guidelines. --Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 19:14, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect or delete there are several sources mentioning this popping up, but at the moment there's nothing to report, just rumour. I doubt MS will talk officially anytime soon either, as that would pretty much kill Win8 sales. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 19:29, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Surely that's irrelevant to the status of the article? Even if every reliable source thus reported so far turned out to be complete hogwash, because we go on verifiability, not truth, it doesn't matter. --Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 19:36, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Rumour-mongering isn't Wikipedia's job, leave that to the blogs. I think you're misunderstanding "Verifiability, not truth", which is more about taking reliable sources over some random person's word ("I know JFK was killed by aliens, man, they told me so in a dream!"). It's not at all an encouragement of far-flung rumours and idle speculation. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 19:43, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So rename the article "Windows Blue rumours" - then everyone's happy. --Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 20:15, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

These rumors are no more notable than any other Microsoft OS rumors. --Jasper Deng (talk) 20:17, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Is the stuff in the article supported by significant coverage in multiple, independent, reliable sources? Yes or no? --Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 20:20, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's not the only criteria, Ritchie333. If the material comes under WP:NOT, it doesn't matter how well sourced it is, and this comes under WP:NOT#CRYSTAL.—Kww(talk) 20:41, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

According to WP:NOT#CRYSTAL, that states "Wikipedia is not a collection of unverifiable (my emphasis) speculation." --Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 20:52, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Look down at point 5: Wikipedia is not a collection of product announcements and rumors. Certainly we can verify that the rumours exist, but the rumours themselves are not suitable content.—Kww(talk) 20:57, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's really for just opinion pieces and tabloid journalism, where one person randomly suspects something. In the case of this article, we have multiple sources converging on fairly basic an uncontroversial details. By all means remove any speculative stuff like features, but a top level stub that gives the name, dates of leaks and suspected shipping dates should suffice. --Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 10:21, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - the name itself is only speculation so I don't even think we should keep a redirect.--Jasper Deng (talk) 20:10, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- This edit shows why we can't have an article on this yet.--Jasper Deng (talk) 02:31, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: WP:CRYSTAL concerns. This is speculative material about a future product.—Kww(talk) 20:41, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:CRYSTAL. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 22:48, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The RfD discussion is still ongoing. Someone has turned the redirect with an RFD template into the article. --24.6.164.7 (talk) 08:29, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's usually fine. In these cases the RFD is closed as moot (I closed the RFD). Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 07:58, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The nominator started an AFD without reverting back to a version that contained an RFD template when the RFD discussion was still open. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Windows 9 where the result of the debate was to redirect Windows 9 to Microsoft Windows#Future of Windows. --24.6.164.7 (talk) 09:19, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:CRYSTALBALL. If and when this is confirmed as legitimate, the article can be recreated with reliable sources. --GSK ● ✉ ✓ 09:14, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My gut feeling, based on this, this and this, is that I would suspect if the article was deleted, it would be created in good faith in a week or two by someone who hadn't seen this discussion. For just that reason, I would favour at least a redirect.--Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 10:13, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Ritchie. According to WP:R#DELETE, item #10, redirects that point to an article which contains virtually no information on the subject are candidates for deletion. Such redirects are evil. They send readers to s long irrelevant article and waste their time before they realizes the article contains no information on the subject. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 10:58, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's a guideline, which can be bent per WP:IAR, which I would do for reasons I have just described. Are you seriously telling me that somebody typing "Windows Blue", and going to a page on Microsoft Windows that has a small section on possible future versions (which is what a redirect will do), won't get what's going on? I reiterate - unless salted, the article has a high chance of simply being created by a random editor again. --Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 11:26, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Microsoft Windows does not have any info on Windows Blue. Even if it had, there is a clear consensus that is a matter of WP:CRYSTAL. Remember, IAR says ignore rules to improve Wikipedia, not to irritate its readership. "The first and most important factor in Wikipedia for deciding whether to break or to adhere to a rule is whether or not it makes you more popular". (Fleet Command, 5 December 2012)

And don't worry about salting or re-creation. It is fixed in just a snap. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 15:27, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I'm ducking out of this conversation as you're not really getting what I'm saying, I'm afraid. My concern is that the article will be recreated by somebody else soon, and we'll be back to AfD round 2, just like Windows 8. How do we avoid that? --Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 15:41, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I assure you, I do "get" what you say; I just don't share your concern, i.e. neither I am afraid of the article recreation nor I believe a redirect would stop it. (The fact that we are here proves that a redirect has already failed.) WP:CSD#G4 can deal with the case. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 08:28, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ah fair enough, we'll just have to agree to disagree on this one. Long term I think an article will get established, even if it has to go through a bunch of AfDs or G4s first (such as just about any AfD that gets closed per WP:HAMMER) --Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 11:09, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Also, you would have to define a "wild goose chase" to us if you have previously cited the phrase above and elsewhere. --24.6.164.7 (talk) 09:19, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 00:16, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Looks like an article in its early stage. Georgia guy (talk) 01:19, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Per Georgia guy. It's a start class article, but that's no reason for it to be deleted. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 17:39, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Actually there are two good reason: (1) Sources do not verify its contents. The article introduces "Windows Blue" as a new version of Windows, while if you read its sources, none of them says so. They think Windows Blue is a rapid-update mechanism, name of a new update, an update roll out a feature pack or new version of Windows. (2) WP:CRYSTAL says rumors are not allowed, even if the article spreading the rumor is FA quality. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 18:45, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, previously Delete. Even though WP:CRYSTAL applies, there is enough coverage of this topic on a number of reliable websites that an article, even at this stage, may be warranted. Windows Vista, which had the longest development period, was first created in September 2003, so getting a year's head start on Windows Blue might not be such a bad idea. --GSK ● ✉ ✓ 18:31, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Theverge reached out to Microsoft for comment, however a company spokesperson refused to discuss Windows Blue. And Wes Miller, an analyst at Directions on Microsoft: "I think we witnessed a new mode of aggressive upgrade pricing this year with Windows 8, and Microsoft could well try that tactic again, really dropping in an incentive for frequent upgraders to do so, If (Windows Blue) is the full-fare cost of Windows, even for Windows 8 users, I can’t imagine that going over too well." IanMurrayWeb (talk) 05:38, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. If I had to put a ^{[failed verification]} in front of every statement in the article, all four sourced statements would have received one. Let's have a look:

Article says

Windows Blue is the codename of an upcoming release of Microsoft Windows operating system.

The Verge source says

the company is planning to standardize on an approach, codenamed Blue, across Windows and Windows Phone in an effort to provide more regular updates to consumers

ZDNet source says

Blue is more of a feature pack, which would/could include be a rollup of fixes plus some new features

Softpedia source says

According to Verge blah blah

No offense guys, but I think you should read the source itself instead of just its name!

The rest of the stuff written in there do not have a source at all. Fleet Command (talk) 09:45, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect/merge for now until more verifiable information comes out - eg when the next version of Windows is in beta. For the redirect I would think something like History of Microsoft Windows #Future releases, which would briefly cover whatever official announcements or anything on the next release published in reliable and noteworthy sources. -Helvetica (talk) 20:04, 27 December 2012 (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. postdlf (talk) 22:46, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Meg Myers[edit]

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

Was dePRODed by creator but still fails to meet criteria. Concern was: 'Fails to meet notability criteria per WP:BAND' . Further searches have failed to reveal more reliable sources in number and scope. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 20:39, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, fails WP:BAND. —Theo polisme 22:20, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Possible keep - She has received some attention, with articles here, here, here and other probably not so reliable or notable links here. She has only released one album so far but receiving attention from LA Weekly and The Guardian is fairly significant and the listed articles offer some interesting details about her. I can continue searching and add them to the article later. SwisterTwister talk 00:05, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I performed another search (including at British sources BBC and Telegraph) trying to find other sources but I'm finding mostly blogs that probably wouldn't meet Wikipedia's requirements for sources. However, we should keep in mind that she is obviously starting a career so there aren't that many sources and she seems to be keeping a rather indie life at this time. SwisterTwister talk 02:29, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - As noted by SwisterTwister, there are a couple of independent reviews in major publications, technically meeting WP:GNG, and the Carson Daly bit appears to hit WP:BAND criterion #12. VQuakr (talk) 01:49, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Possible keep? - It is mentioned here by a Los Angeles FM radio station that "We've been playing her for months on Close to Home," and she is mentioned here in the official blog of PETA. Are these significant to notability criteria 1 or 11 at WP:BAND? Kemery720 (talk) 04:52, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Questions - Thanks for looking into this, SwisterTwister and VQuakr. I'm new to editing Wikipedia at this level of rigor. I have a couple questions: Is it significant that she has been booked twice at The Viper Room in the last 6 months? That's more than just a bar gig; that venue has a lot of prestige. Also, is the following significant? She currently has 39 ratings and 9 reviews on iTunes. By comparison, Christmas With the Beach Boys, a compilation of two previous Beach Boys Christmas albums, has only 31 ratings and 4 reviews. I don't know if iTunes user response is significant at all. Is this the appropriate place to ask these questions? Kemery720 (talk) 04:25, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, this is an excellent place to discuss and ask questions about Meg Myers's notability as defined on Wikipedia. In my opinion the radio station is too local for criterion #11 (which calls for a "major network," not an individual station) and the PETA reference is pretty trivial. Since notability is not inherited, what clubs she has played is only relevant if it has resulted in coverage by reliable, third party sources. Similarly, social network and user generated content such as Facebook and iTunes do not convey notability. VQuakr (talk) 05:02, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

New Music Seminar - How about the New Music Seminar? She's listed in the "Artists On The Verge" top 100 chart and included in the compilation "New Music Seminar - Artist On The Verge 2012, Vol. 1". The New Music Seminar, discussed in articles here and here, is a notable musical conference which focuses largely on up-and-coming artists. I can't find a better source to provide evidence that a new and relatively unknown artist is, nonetheless, notable. Kemery720 (talk) 07:57, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 08:05, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Tennessee-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 08:05, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 08:05, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep in addition to above coverage there is a review in Hobart Mercury (Australia), 24 march 2012 by Jarrad Bevan. duffbeerforme (talk) 02:21, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 00:08, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Coverage in a wide variety of sources would seem to suggest that the subject passes WP:BIO or criterion #1 of WP:BAND. Particularly persuaded by coverage in The Guardian, LA Weekly, as well as a bunch of interviews [20][21][22][23][24]. Gobōnobō ⁺ ^c 05:39, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep: Debut album failed to appear on a national music chart, a review from "hitsdailydouble.com" doesn't seem worthy to be mentioned but nevertheless enough independent sources to be kept-RoseL2P (talk) 13:50, 22 December 2012 (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.