< 30 December	1 January >

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. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:32, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Andreas Kraniotakes[edit]

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

Fighter fails WP:NMMA JadeSnake (talk) 23:07, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 03:11, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 03:11, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 03:11, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails WP:NMMA. --LlamaAl (talk) 17:54, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NMMA. --TreyGeek (talk) 22:17, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:NMMA JayJay^{What did I do?} 03:42, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep He has notable fights against Tim Sylvia and Mike Hayes also the first source says says he has been in promotional activity including television appearances numerous times in addition to that he also appeared as a playable character in the video game EA Sports MMA. Entity of the Void (talk) 02:11, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Notability is not inherited. Jakejr (talk) 03:00, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Subject fails WP:NMMA since he has none of the 3 required top tier fights. Jakejr (talk) 03:00, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Finally getting some clean-up with WP:NMMA. Mkdw ^talk 09:32, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Mediran (t • c) 10:20, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Jennifer Graylock[edit]

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

This is not the subject of substantial coverage in multiple reliable sources. Note that WP:LOTSOFSOURCES don't actually indicate coverage of the subject. Most search results I find actually just refer to photo credits and are not actual coverage of Graylock. Others, such as this and stuff on Business Wire are WP:CRYSTAL and press releases, overall promotional in nature. I found one decent article, but that alone doesn't indicate this subject is actually notable. JFHJr (㊟) 23:00, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Userfy I have yet to hear back from Ms Graylock as to how she wishes to proceed. Although she is extremely notable in her field the mainstream rarely looks at photo credits.--Canoe1967 (talk) 23:09, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment As well as 4074 mag, she's got a bit of trivial coverage for her chairs[1][2][3] and had various published interviews, including a video on the WSJ site[4][5][6] This doesn't seem enough to build an article out of. But I'll wait and see what Graylock says if she's been in touch with Wikipedia. --Colapeninsula (talk) 02:24, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I came across her work from an image in commons. I wanted to email her about it and discovered how prolific she is. I created the article, then emailed her for a pic, info etc. No answer back yet.--Canoe1967 (talk) 02:49, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

SNOW KEEP ~~STRONG keep~~ - Notable, easily meets WP:ARTIST --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 08:37, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, "strong" with capslock! That's like a vote and a half! What specific criteria at WP:ARTIST does she easily meet? And according to what third party sources? Do you think there's actually enough information out there to cobble together an encyclopedic biography? And if so, from precisely what sources? JFHJr (㊟) 14:54, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

2. The person is a significant contributor to, a subject of, or used as an expert source by major news agencies or publications. 1. may qualify as well. Cited by peers... Cited can be taken a few ways the way it is worded.--Canoe1967 (talk) 20:14, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

She is a significant contributor and an expert source to Vogue, Glamour, Us Weekly, People, TV Guide, InStyle, Entertainment Weekly and the Washington Post. So I imagine that I was referring to article two of WP:ARTIST. She also qualifies under article one, but article two is the heavyweight...specifically. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 01:25, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You forgot the wire services: UPI, AP, CP, etc. I think that wire photo company she founded probably was a boost to access for media. --Canoe1967 (talk) 01:38, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

How could I have missed that? That's what I get for depriving myself of coffee. I have to go change my vote now. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 02:44, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 17:49, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 17:49, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 17:49, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep; appears to meet WP:ARTIST, although the page could improve (such as citation format). Backtable ^{Speak to me}_{concerning my deeds.} 20:53, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I was going to see how this AfD went and then work on the article. I already had section on her equipment that someone deleted. Jason Becker has a huge section on his guitars but it may not look right in a photographer bio.--Canoe1967 (talk) 21:07, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Satisfies point 2 of WP:CREATIVE, because this person is a significant contributor to major news publications with her photographic works. Northamerica1000^(talk) 09:45, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to American Pit Bull Terrier. MBisanz ^talk 00:05, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

American Bully[edit]

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

Delete or Merge with American Pit Bull Terrier - I can't find any secondary sources that establish the notability of this breed. In fact, a spin around google showed me nothing but passing mentions in a self-published erotic novel and a local newspaper.

The first source is the only one that might be considered a mention in a secondary source and I don't know how reliable that website is. Two of them are academic papers that don't even mention Bullies. The rest are directly related to the breed clubs representing the breed. TKK ^{bark !} 22:08, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The article does not contain significant coverage in reliable sources that are about this type of dog. I have not been able to find sources to establish notability. GB fan 13:13, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organisms-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 17:34, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. postdlf (talk) 05:57, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Bernard Kleiman[edit]

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

Non-notable per WP:BIO. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 02:08, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment 1. The Washington Times obituary described the subject as having "played a key role in bringing the steel industry into compliance with the Civil Rights Act". ([7] via Highbeam, subscription reqd.). AllyD (talk) 08:16, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment 2. The subject did get decent-length obituaries in media including the NY Times, as shown in the article. However I also notice on the article Talk page that User:Whpq had previously raised concerns about the closeness of the article text to the NY Times obituary, and I would say that this concern remains. So if this article does survive at AfD, it looks like it needs radical change. AllyD (talk) 08:19, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Need to have significant coverage for notability. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 02:47, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:38, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:38, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Lengthy obituaries in the New York Times, Los Angeles Times and Pittsburgh Post-Gazette plus numerous newspaper mentions and quotes during the course of his career[8][9][10][11][12] satisfy WP:GNG. Clarityfiend (talk) 01:34, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The research above demonstrates there is significant coverage from reliable sources concerning Kleiman and his work as an attorney. Coverage from the LA Times, for example, shows its not just routine obits in regional papers. -- Lord Roem (talk) 08:02, 26 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 21:20, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I don't understand why this was relisted when clear evidence of notability has been presented. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:31, 31 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. MBisanz ^talk 00:06, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wellfleet Communications[edit]

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

Quick search did not reveal in depth coverage in multiple reliable sources to establish notability. Citation issues tagged since Aug 2010 Nounique names 21:09, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. A mention at Bay Networks is all that is needed. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 21:40, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 20:05, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 20:05, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Citations added from multiple reliable sources and working to add more, however it will take time due to fair amount of material residing offline (due to age of material). Company was defunct in 1994 yet continues to be referenced in articles as recently as 2011. Page seems to now meet notability requirement. Pjhansen (talk) 20:00, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The company merged to become Bay Netoworks thus should be separate. They were a notable #2 router company. Mike (talk) 23:30, 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 01:09, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete - There is really no reason whatsoever to keep this as a standalone article, especially now that this company has merged into another. A brief mention in the Bay Networks will do nicely. No more than that is needed, in fact it would only serve to clutter Wikipedia and thus weaken the encyclopedia. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 04:47, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Ottawahitech (talk) 06:02, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This company was notable as a stand alone company and has plenty of references. It should remain separate from the new entity per WP:SUMMARYSTYLE. -DJSasso (talk) 12:59, 27 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 21:17, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:NCORP, WP:DUE. We shouldn't merge articles on companies just because they've been acquired by another company, particularly bearing in mind the (sourced, p.11 of Network World, 1993) statement that Wellfleet was ranked the fastest-growing company in the United States by Fortune Magazine in both 1992 and 1993 ... -- Trevj (talk) 14:34, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep from nominator. This article is significantly improved. Specifically, sources have been located and added. My nomination rationale seems no longer valid, and I no longer support deletion. --Nounique names 17:19, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. postdlf (talk) 05:58, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

1955 Hawaii R6D-1 crash[edit]

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

not notable as a military aircraft accident, can be adequately covered in List of accidents and incidents involving military aircraft (1955–1959)#1955 Petebutt (talk) 19:12, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Quote from the article: "It remains the worst air disaster in the history of Hawaii and the deadliest accident involving a heavier-than-air aircraft in the history of United States naval aviation". Presumably that makes it notable, military accident or not. For a more general argument that applies here too, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1956 Atlantic R6D-1 crash. GregorB (talk) 23:12, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Are we really saying that an aviation accident with in excess of 50 fatalities is not notable because it involved a military aircraft. Worst ever aviation accident in Hawaii also adds weight to the case for a stand-alone article. Mjroots (talk) 16:26, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I am reserving judgement as to whether to keep or delete this article, but I just want to point out that I have been unable to verify that the statement that it is the worst crash in Hawaii is correct. I'm not saying it is incorrect, just that I haven't seen anything yet to confirm that it is. The statement "the deadliest accident involving a heavier-than-air aircraft in the history of United States naval aviation" is from a website for an association for veterans of a particular US Navy squadron, and may not pass muster as a WP:RS. YSSYguy (talk) 21:13, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- It was the worst DC-6 accident at the time. Mjroots (talk) 22:18, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- While skepticism regarding anything on Wikipedia is wise and, as far as it goes, commendable with regard to protecting the truth, it stretches credulity to think that a crash killing more than 66 people would have gone unnoticed in online plane crash databases of various types and among Wikipedia's other aviation-accident-and-incidents articles. Granted, some forgotten crash that was even worse could have happened in Hawaii and been so completely forgotten or hushed-up that no reference to it can be found or remembered, but that is highly unlikely to say the least. By all means, research the matter further and see if you can find a deadlier air crash in Hawaii; if you find one we can correct this article (and, of course, add an article on that crash to Wikipedia). Meanwhile, I would say it's 99-plus percent certain that it was the deadliest; you can always add "as far as is known" to the text or something similar if you remain uncomfortable with not having absolute proof, although you should remember that it's difficult-to-impossible to prove a negative conclusively. And if there ever is a deadlier accident in Hawaii, we can (and will) change this article (and presumably add an article on the new accident). Mdnavman (talk) 22:47, 1 January 2013 (UTC)mdnavman[reply]
- I think we can drop objections to it being the deadliest heavier-than-air accident in U.S. navy aviation history as well. The then-Naval Historical Center (now Naval History and Heritage Command) in Grossnick, Roy A. United States Naval Aviation 1910-1995. Washington, D.C.: Naval Historical Center, undated, ISBN 0-945274-34-3., p. 206, confirms it. Again, as with the above statement about Hawaii, we can always change it if someone unearths a forgotten incident that was deadlier, Wikipedia articles being living documents. And if there ever is a deadlier U.S. naval aviation accident, we will have to change this article (and add an article on the new accident, too). Mdnavman (talk) 22:47, 1 January 2013 (UTC)mdnavman[reply]
Keep - Keep it, of course. It is extremely odd to me that such a large aviation disaster – 66 dead! – would be considered unremarkable. And that's without considering its significance in Hawaiian and U.S. naval aviation history or that it was tied with 1955's worst commercial aviation accident for the deadliest air accident of the year or, per Aviation Safety Network Aircraft Accident Douglas R6D-1 (DC-6) 131612 Honolulu, HI, that at the time it was both the worst DC-6 accident in history and the second-worst aviation accident in U.S. history. And if 66 deaths isn't enough to make a military crash significant, what on earth would be? {We also should note that many commercial and military aviation accidents and incidents with far fewer fatalities have their own articles; just click around in the "Aviation Accidents and Incidents in 1955" template at the bottom of the article to see that this is the case in 1955 alone, let alone in almost every other year.) Far from deleting the article, we should be surprised that this crash hasn't gotten more attention sooner. Mdnavman (talk) 22:47, 1 January 2013 (UTC)mdnavman[reply]
Keep while being a supporter of the military aircraft crash more often and dont need article camp, clearly a non-operational, non-training trooping flight with 66 deaths is of note. Although just as an aside any article that uses "crash" always gives the impression of being more tabloid then encyclopedia and not sure anybody knows what an R6D-1 is it may be better to call it 1955 Hawaii Douglas Liftmaster accident, but that can be discussed if kept. MilborneOne (talk) 10:45, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Mjroots. Deadliest accident in Hawaii and at 66 dead, a higher than average death toll for a crash at that time. I also suggest this AFD be closed as a WP:SNOW....William 13:25, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:41, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:41, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:41, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:41, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hawaii-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 15:52, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. For God's sake, 66 people were killed and it was one of the worst air accidents of its time. Of course it's notable. We don't just delete all aircrash articles because they're military. That would be very, very foolish and dogmatic. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:52, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. postdlf (talk) 05:58, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

1956 Atlantic R6D-1 crash[edit]

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

A military aircraft accident has to be notable, unlike this one, which can be adequately covered in List of accidents and incidents involving military aircraft (1955–1959)#1956 Petebutt (talk) 19:01, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Utterly disagree. I find it hard to understand how it is not notable; in fact, I find it suprising that no article has existed before. It was a major event: Fifty-nine (!!) people died, making it deadlier than all but two of the other aviation accidents and incidents in 1956 – you can check this quickly by clicking through the other accidents listed in the "Aviation Accidents and Incidents in 1956" template at the bottom. It's also one of the deadlier U.S. naval aviation accidents in history. If a crash of this magnitude is not notable, it makes one wonder why so many other crashes with far fewer casualties and mundane causes are "notable" enough to merit their own articles. And whether the aircraft is a military transport or a civilian airliner does not seem important, especially in the case of a high-fatality incident in peacetime. Mdnavman (talk) 19:24, 31 December 2012 (UTC)mdnavman[reply]
Keep. Given the number of fatalities, the accident appears to be notable. It is unclear why peacetime military accidents involving non-combat aircraft should meet a different (i.e. higher) threshold of notability compared to civilian accidents. Also, if the content is sufficiently developed for an adequate treatment in a standalone article - and I'd say that it is - then the existence of a list does not matter. GregorB (talk) 23:17, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep' - again, an accident with in excess of 50 fatalities. This should be a sufficient threshold to be able to sustain a stand alone article. The "rule" about military aircraft accidents being generally less notable is intended to keep out the thousands of training and operational accidents involving only a few fatalities, not major accidents like this. Mjroots (talk) 16:30, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Quite true, military aviation naturally has a much higher accident rate, combat aircraft in particular. My point was that this flight involved transport of personnel, which makes it in essence equivalent to, say, a civilian chartered flight. So, in this particular context I don't think that the fact it was a military aircraft matters much. The number of fatalities, of course, makes it even more straightforward. GregorB (talk) 16:47, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - I defend nominating the article, as I felt that it fell into a grey area and a discussion could only improve the coverage of Aviation accidents. Thank you all for your input.--Petebutt (talk) 19:34, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    - I guess, and I don't mean to be rude or insulting here, but my thought processes on what should and should not be in Wikipedia are quite different, and I remain surprised that this article was nominated. I think what I consider a "common-sense" test should be in order for such nominations that goes beyond whatever gray area there may be or whatever cautious or conservative interpretation of Wikipedia policies may be possible. The test, simply put, is to imagine in this case that someone tells you that 59 military personnel just died in a plane crash and to consider whether or not you would say to yourself or to them, "Sounds pretty routine to me." You probably would instead be shocked by the size of the death toll. And there you go – you know it's a significant accident, worthy of far more than being buried in some list somewhere. (One could also try to imagine the news media ignoring such an accident because 59-death military aircraft crashes are so common that they have become boring, which also is not credible.) Anyway, coverage of this accident is very poor online, so I hope that the Wikipedia article will spur greater interest and more research, and will itself, as a living document, be expanded when that research pays off. After all, that is an important mission of Wikipedia, from which we all benefit. (That being said, I think Wikipedia would improve its stature by considering fewer computer-game-character articles to be significant enough for inclusion, but that, of course, is a whole different subject!) Best wishes in the New Year! Mdnavman (talk) 23:13, 1 January 2013 (UTC)mdnavman[reply]
Keep although a military flight it is a non-operational, non-training trooping flight with multiple deaths. Dont like the use of crash in the title and as this appears to be a dissapearance so perhaps should be renamed if kept. MilborneOne (talk) 10:51, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:35, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:35, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:35, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:37, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, appears notable --Nounique names 14:49, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete all. —Darkwind (talk) 13:58, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Tabernacle of Faith International[edit]

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

No assertion of notability per WP:ORG. Can't find anything about the church online in WP:Reliable sources, apart from brief local news coverage of when their school caught fire. Core article of a WP:Walled garden of articles on its pastor, local chapters, its youth group and its school, all of which similarly don't assert notability per WP:ORG (or WP:BIO in the case of its pastor), with no significant coverage online from WP:Reliable sources. Altered Walter (talk) 08:28, 23 December 2012 (UTC) I am also nominating the following related pages as noted above:[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Altered Walter (talk) 08:37, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Altered Walter (talk) 08:37, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. Altered Walter (talk) 08:37, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all - I feel sorry for the students of their school which caught fire, but other than that isolated incident, I can't find anything reliable. Please note that there are many, many of these "born-again" (as Filipinos call them) churches, and not all receive reliable coverage, since most are small and/or low-profile (I myself have several friends who are "born-again"). Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 10:24, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect Sub-article(s) – The main article should remain, and information from sub-articles be merged. It ain't a small church though. ~~Israel (talk) 14:48, 23 December 2012 (UTC)~~— Preceding unsigned comment added by Ace_Mendiola (talk • contribs) [reply]

Please sign your comments with ~~~~, and please don't use your old account name when signing your posts. Altered Walter (talk) 05:23, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep main article. Merge rest. The absolute membership is not clear, but with 38 satellite/daughter churches, it is beginning tolook morelike a denomination than a sinlge church. Peterkingiron (talk) 20:18, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The article says "It originally had 38 churches located throughout the Philippines with several outlying chapters.", but so far there's no way to WP:Verify even this claim of former membership. Altered Walter (talk) 05:23, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It doesn't matter how many churches they claim to have. There is a distinct lack of reliable sources on this denomination, excepting the newspaper articles on the fire. Majoreditor (talk) 04:07, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all. I didn't find any convincing evidence of notability, and the vast majority of content fails WP:V. --Michig (talk) 10:14, 30 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, — Crisco 1492 (talk) 16:38, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Meets WP:NOTABILITY but fails WP:VERIFY --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 08:48, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Appears to fail in a number of ways - we've failed to verify things, and IMHO, that's a potential failure of notability in some sense. SarahStierch (talk) 02:34, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - very small denomination, with little visible way to verify each chapel or congregation. Bearian (talk) 20:04, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Withdrawn. Mark Arsten (talk) 19:24, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Lynette Nusbacher[edit]

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

While she is undoubtedly an accomplished individual, I'm not convinced that the subject of the article meets our notability guidelines (WP:PROF, WP:AUTHOR, or WP:GNG). Mark Arsten (talk) 16:17, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Per the new source that has been found confirming notability, I'm willing to withdraw this now. Mark Arsten (talk) 19:09, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose deletion, the person is more than notable enough as a military histroy expert and he/she has featured as such in various television programs. -- fdewaele, 31 December 2012, 17:26 CET.
Keep -- and to evaluate this properly one will need to look at Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL as well. There's a kerfuffle on WP:BLPN at the moment, with some rather unenlightening discussion. Some want to make a big deal about this person's sex change; having encountered resistance to that prospect, they are arguing something like "one or the other isn't notable on his/her own". It's profoundly silly, and it doesn't mean that this is not a notable person. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 16:30, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There was a previous deletion discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aryeh Nusbacher. Phil Bridger (talk) 17:00, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The "kerfuffle" was caused by an advocate trying to help the article's subject scrub her page of any reference to Ayreh while still trying to claim Ayreh's career as her own. If that user had left well enough alone, none of this would have happened. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:18, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - No, that is a misunderstanding that seems to have taken hold of nearly everyone on all sides of the various conversations that are taking place. The long-standing version of the article that has come out of previous discussions did include the name under which earlier writings and TV documentaries were published, and no "advocate" made any attempt to "scrub" it. What was at issue was whether this should be in the opening sentence of the article and whether it should be described as a former name. It may be, for all we know from reliable sources, a nom de plume rather than a former name. If this had been left well enough alone we would not have this silly kerfuffle split over so many pages that it's impossible to have a rational discussion. Phil Bridger (talk) 17:42, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - There's no evidence that it's a "nom due plume" - that's your original research. And the subject herself (or someone pretending to be her) has demonstrated attempts to scrub the article. That's against the rules. And the "silly kerfuffle" is indeed the product of advocates of the article subject who want to twist wikipedia to suit her personal agenda. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:48, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      - I didn't claim that there's any evidence for either "former name" or "nom de plume", only that they are both possibilities. If reliable sources don't tell us which of these or other possibilities is correct then we can't put either claim in the article. What we do have sources for is that books were published and TV documentaries presented under this name. Nusbacher identified herself via OTRS several years ago, as I already told you in the BLP/N discussion, so "or someone pretending to be her" is uncalled for. The only agenda that I see here is a wish to follow WP:BLP in the claims that we make and their sourcing. Phil Bridger (talk) 17:58, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        Then, in the absence of any evidence to the contrary, you have to have two separate articles and pretend that the two are different persons. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:02, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        Here is a reliable source confirming that Lynette Nusbacher is the person who wrote some of the books published under the name Aryeh Nusbacher, so we do have evidence that they are the same person, but not for the reason why the books were published under this name. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:21, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        See source listed below. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:32, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ unless someone can find sufficient notability to stand alone since 2007, without reference to her former persona of 2006 and earlier. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:15, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, assuming the evidence is solid. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:33, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I found a scholarly Palgrave publication which confirms the sex change and previous name:
• William D. Rubinstein; Michael Jolles; Hilary L. Rubinstein, eds. (2011). The Palgrave Dictionary of Anglo-Jewish History. Palgrave Macmillan. p. 727. ISBN 1403939101.
I think the matter is now settled. Binksternet (talk) 18:22, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- If you've got the goods, then the complaints are unjustified. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:31, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notability is obvious, as subject is a widely-known television personality. ► Belchfire-TALK 18:24, 31 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. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 14:50, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

70 Golden Nursery Rhymes[edit]

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

Not notable. No GNews/Book hits, GHits consist mainly of YTube and blogs. No reliable or verifiable sources. PROD declined by creator. GregJackP Boomer! 16:12, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I endorsed the PROD earlier last night because a search brought up nothing to show that this would pass notability guidelines in general, let alone WP:NFILM. This is one of many kids films released during the 80s/90s period that never gained enough notability to merit an article in Wikipedia. It might have had notable persons involved with it, but a good many kids movies during that time period did and notability isn't inherited by having notable persons involved in it.Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 16:37, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I also endorse the redirect per Schmidt.Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 12:05, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per nom JayJay^{What did I do?} 16:45, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 17:24, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per general notability guidelines. I could not find significant coverage from independent, reliable sources. This might mention the film, but I doubt it is substantial. Erik (talk | contribs) 17:36, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect title to Isla St Clair#Discography where it is already listed. This title is actually NOT a film, but is rather a children's musical soundtrack album released in 1983 and based upon the 1982 children's video release Nursery Rhymes. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 23:45, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect to Isla St Clair#Discography. After some source searching, just not finding coverage to qualify this topic for a Wikipedia article per WP:N. Coverage available online is generally limited to blogs such as this blog article. Northamerica1000^(talk) 10:47, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. No significant independent coverage. Most sources provided pertained to other organizations or were self-promotions. No prejudice toward writing a new article from reliable sources. Mackensen (talk) 20:57, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

CFC – Youth for Christ[edit]

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

Non-notable "youth branch" of a barely notable organization itself. Few ref's to try to even suggest any form of notability. Although possibly a noble goal, Wikipedia is not a place for noble organizations that lack notability (✉→BWilkins←✎) 22:28, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:GNG and WP:ORG with no significant coverage in reliable sources - all mentions are extremely trivial, and several of the small number of news hits (which themselves are mostly WP:ROUTINE announcements of upcoming events) actually appear to be paid listings. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 23:51, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I haven't established my vote yet but Google News archives found several results from the Philippines, confirming the existence there. I think two of the results, this and this are particularly helpful because they provide information about the group's history. One of the other results here suggests the group was introduced in Africa as well. SwisterTwister talk 06:08, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I plan to go through these results later and see if I can establish my vote. I found this news article from 2003 that mentions Youth for Christ has 200,000 members so this may be significant. SwisterTwister talk 06:13, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:50, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:50, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:50, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:50, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - I can confirm that Couples for Christ and its youth branch Youth for Christ are quite prominent in the Philippines, or at least have a relatively large membership (I know plenty of friends and relatives who are members of CFC). I'm surprised that there seems to be little coverage for either given CFC's popularity (hence the "weak" part of my !vote), but there's the news article which seems to confirm the large membership number. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 02:41, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I am not seeing significant coverage. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 02:50, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep In my experience, this is a significant organization. Couples for Christ is certainly very significant. It founded Gawad Kalinga among other things. I regularly see the "CFC - Youth for Christ" stickers. This site [13] says they have 200,000 members in over 100 countries, though most are in the Philippines. --Bruce Hall (talk) 14:53, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Couples for Christ. YFC's notability is derived from its association with CFC, and without it, it's not even notable for a section. It's activities (and influence) aren't as expansive as its mother organization, which is quite little to begin with. –H T D 20:22, 28 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, - a boat that can float! (happy holidays) 16:01, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep; after look at the reliable sources (web & news) out there the subject appears to be notable per WP:GNG and/or WP:ORG.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 20:48, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - the Google searches linked above appear to be more relevant to Youth for Christ, a Protestant organization, whereas CFC – Youth for Christ is decidedly Catholic. Quantumobserver (talk) 17:22, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Notability is well established --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 08:47, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There being only one cited source doesn't show notability. Besides, this Article is so sloppy that even if the subject did turn out to be notable, it would be better to write a new Article from scratch than to try editing this mess into anything good (like polishing manure at this point). Don't get me started on the grammatical errors and the fact that a red link to a non-existent image file is said to be the organization's logo. The Mysterious El Willstro (talk) 08:52, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. Advertising, with a little bit of ignore all rules spice. —Tom Morris (talk) 22:47, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sms lottery[edit]

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

Too short to warrant an article of its own. When properly written it can be included briefly in the main Lottery article and possibly redirect searches for 'SMS Lottery' to it. Johnny Beta (talk) 15:07, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per WP:CSD#G11 : "Blatant advertising". I thought there might be sources for this, that discredit the whole thing, but they're actually all hits about lottery scams sent via SMS. Turns out this article is just an unreferenced front for www.smslottery.co.uk. --Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 21:21, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Vote count here is 5 delete to 4 keep, but there are some concerns here that people visited other talkpages to canvass support for their view, so the value of that is reduced. I based my decision here on the WP:MUSIC guideline and the wording in the WP:BLP1E policy.

The guideline that has been the centre of attention here is WP:MUSIC. In regards to releases, it is pretty clear that 100 copies sold mostly to friends and family falls far below the threshold that usually confers notability. On the other hand, Justice007 cited three criteria, number 9, 10, and 11 as a basis for Vitti's notability. With regards to #11, that one is dismissed, nobody here has produced any evidence that Vitti's songs have ever been in rotation on a major radio or music TV network. Participation in a single TV program is not the sustained airing constitutes a "rotation". #10 is a bit more debatable as Vitti did participate in a TV contest, but there is clear precedent that this does not extend to anyone who has participated in a contest, and even so, the wording in the guideline indicates that meeting this criterion on its own probably qualifies for no more than a redirect and mention in a parent article. (In this case, we have no article on the contest.) Finally criterion #9, winning or placing in a major music competition is also open to interpretation of the word "major", and the meaning of the word "placing" (which probably means that the competitor was in serious contention for victory, and not e.g. knocked out in preliminary rounds. Mere participation in a contest is most likely not sufficient). La Grande Battle was sent on a major French television network and it is certainly arguable that national prominence is "major"; however there is no evidence that Vitti won the contest or was close to winning the contest. I see the point being made by the keep side on #9, but equating participation with placing is stretching it.

What also weighs heavily is the WP:BLP1E policy that Azurfrog mentioned in a brief comment. All the cited sources are related to participation in La Grande Battle. Apart from that, Vitti has not yet gained a high profile in the music industry; his self-published album only sold 100 copies, and there is no other coverage about him. Finally, the third point in BLP1E which opens for notabiliy if "the event is significant and the individual's role within it is substantial and well-documented" is not so relevant here; a single edition of a contest is unlikely to qualify as "significant" and mere participation in the contest is not the "substantial" involvement that this policy is looking for. Several of the keep votes here point out that the article is sourced, but have ignored that they are all related to a single contest.

Sjakkalle (Check!) 16:57, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Tony Vitti[edit]

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

Lacks secondary sources of sufficient quality ; no discography Koui² (talk) 13:59, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Koui² (talk) 14:31, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I notice that articles on the subject have been deleted several times from the French Wikipedia, most recently as a result of an AfD-equivalent discussion: [14]. Not decisive in itself for here, but worth noting as France is the subject's area of operation. AllyD (talk) 14:31, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Nothing on Allmusic, nothing on Allaboutjazz; nothing substantial from Google searches; all that we are left with is the references about the subject as one contestant on a French tv contest. Far from enough for WP:NMUSIC. AllyD (talk) 15:02, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Sorry, he has a profile on AllAboutJazz.com : http://musicians.allaboutjazz.com/musician.php?id=47118 And more, there is a discography. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.197.34.189 (talk) 23:05, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I doubt this biography can be considered as "independent from the subject", as requested by GNG. Moreover, the discography (beyond the 100 copies of the record he financed himself for 500 euros, as mentioned below) is "a blues/jazzy EP", "Live Your Life", that "Tony is preparing" for 2013. To me, he is just another guy who had his 15 minutes of fame on November 13, 2012. End of story. --Azurfrog (talk) 11:33, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
We have to address the policies not the wiki-articles that are not our policies. Rule does not mention any period, it just states; " Has won or placed in a major music competition." This establishes the notability. That's all.Justice007 (talk) 12:45, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Does it? See WP:BLP1E. --Azurfrog (talk) 15:58, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
What for then that is Criteria for musicians and ensembles Especially No.9??. Where to apply?.Justice007 (talk) 20:31, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
My point exactly: I strongly doubt it was a "major music competition" at all in the first place. It was a major show, agreed, but a major competition? No way! Have you seen the final results anywhere, beyond the name of the "winner"? What is the final ranking of Tony Vitti? Has any independent source commented upon these results?

No, this never was a "major music competition" to begin with, just a big show (not a very successful one at that, as you can see here). And the more I look at the sources, the more I am convinced that this Tony Vitti just had his 15 minutes of fame on November 13, 2012, nothing more.

After all, notability is not supposed to be just "temporary", "only in the context of a single event", is it? --Azurfrog (talk) 12:54, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No you are just gaming the system, if there is/was the question of the reliability of the sources, then you and nominator should have first discussed and verified the sources to the Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard before/rather than nomination for deletion. You are searching the skin of the hair.Sources demonstrates the notability of the subject very clear.Justice007 (talk) 14:03, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Gaming the system?" No, I am just looking at the hard facts beyond all this vaporware. I am not challenging the reliability of independent sources, I am just making sure we stick to what they really say... or don't say. --Azurfrog (talk) 14:43, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: You have a lot of comments here, actually you are contradicting your comments yourself, even you do not know what the issue is, "the reliability of the sources", "notability", "independent" or "what those state", is not true. You are just guessing, or that is may be your personal experience that is that and that is so. We have to see the reliability, not that how those state or how are written. Our policies do not follow fame or popularity of any subject, we should access the subject, if passes the notability in accordance to wiki-rules. And that subject does. Now let us see how we reach consensus in this regard.Justice007 (talk) 16:51, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Not notable --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 08:51, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: (notability (music) states; "A musician or ensemble (note that this includes a band, singer, rapper, orchestra, DJ, musical theatre group, instrumentalist, etc.) may be notable if it meets at least one of the following criteria:

9. Has won or placed in a major music competition.

10. Has been placed in rotation nationally by a major radio or music television network.

11. Has been a featured subject of a substantial broadcast segment across a national radio or TV network.)

There are other sources too, in which subject's notability is demonstrated and subject appeared live TV competition and has released album. Please note that the failure to meet more secondary sources, does not mean an article must be deleted. I have added Google translation of some sources on the article talk page. May it helps.Justice007 (talk) 12:41, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, fails notability standards Hell In A Bucket (talk) 15:51, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Are that not just votes??.Justice007 (talk) 17:26, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No they are not just votes, the decision is based on consensus and policy. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 00:32, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I have realy concerns that nominating the article, seems to me is not based on good faith, there are cited sources that establish the subject's notability. Just voting, he is not notable or fails notability standards is not the way to reach consensus.Justice007 (talk) 22:13, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: We don't know how to express ourselves on this page, and we don't know if we have the right but we (the Tony's fanbase, speaking for more than 10000 persons on facebook/twitter/reverbnation etc...) want to tell you Tony has been selected by the biggest french tv channel in order to sing in front of more than 2 millions peoples, on Prime and Live. He did not compete on a internet with a votes system, he has been contacted directly by the production. Yes they were votes during the show but tv needs money, right... Know that Tony released an album on January 20th 2012 titled "Welcome to the Family". Reading about the fact that the french page has been deleted, know that they asked the deletetion a few seconds each time after the publication. We think they don't read it but we don't want to be bad faith and we don't know how to express ourselves properly. Thank you for reading. Maria, from the Tony Vitti's fanbase, speaking for everyone in our community. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.197.34.189 (talk) 22:30, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It appears that the subject in question is discussed in a variety of reliable sources, as demonstrated in the References section of the article. The fact that such an abundance of sources exist establish the notability of Vitti. I hope this helps. With regards, Anupam^Talk 15:33, 3 January 2013 (UTC) Note: An editor has expressed a concern that Anupam (talk • contribs) has been canvassed to this discussion. (diff)[reply]

Strong Delete. I fail to see how the subject could meet notability (music) : OK, he was selected to compete in a one-time event, held on November 13, 2012, together with seven other people, without winning anything. OK, he invested 500 euros to issue an album (100 copies, "mainly sold to friends and family", says he... Big deal!) to promote his name. So what? --Azurfrog (talk) 11:38, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment ** As said previously : 1) he has won or placed in a major music competition, 2 ) he has been placed in rotation nationally by a major radio or music television network. 3) he has been a featured subject of a substantial broadcast segment across a national radio or TV network. Vitti should meet at least ONE criteria and he meets 3 of them. The notability is not a subject for deletion anymore. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.197.34.189 (talk) 13:15, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Not my way of seeing things: 1) "Won"? Nope. "Placed"? Unsourced, unless being one of eight is deemed to mean "placed". 2) "Placed in rotation"? No, he was competing against others, on November 13, 2012: no "rotation" involved. 3) "Featured subject"? There again, he was just competing in a major show, but was not "featured" as such, for lack of any previous notability whatsoever. --Azurfrog (talk) 15:58, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It's not YOUR way of seeing things, it is the way medias treat the show. Yes the show is an annual show in France, yes he has been featured on the main website of FRANCE 2 for more than a month and again now (http://programmes.france2.fr/la-grande-battle/) and yes he has been placed by a national french TV. And we are not talking about a private French channel but about a public, payed by frenches' taxes. Excuse me but if you want to use of "bad faith", you can on the first two points but not at the last one or at one that has not been written here : "Has performed music for a work of media that is notable, e.g., [...], performance in a television show". We are not talking about a webcam on dailymotion, come on, it's a multi millions viewers show, on prime time and LIVE. Not even Justin Bieber had this at the begining. Best regards. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.197.34.189 (talk • contribs)

Clarity Well, in the way of bad faith nomination for deletion by nominator User:Koui², he went directly to User talk:Hell in a Bucket's talk page and posting there this and that was removed here. Is it not strange?. ~~A new created user page:by User:Bobrayner, (seems) sock followed me.~~ I just asked User:Anupam for comment, there is no any request of favouring.Many bots asking for comments too. I am not nominator, and that does not fall under canvassed.Justice007 (talk) 17:32, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not offended by this accusation of being a sock; just bemused. I created an account in 2004 and have made 34000 edits; calling me a newly-created sock just because I pointed out canvassing is unhelpful. bobrayner (talk) 19:00, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Message to Justice007: My notice to Hell in a Bucket is not falling under canvassing. I sent him this notice because he previously expressed some concern about Vitti's notability. Therefore, it's perfectly legit, contrary to your notice to Anupam. And please avoid personal attacks such as bad faith nomination (regarding that matter, you might be willing to read WP:Bad faith, which should help you a lot). --Koui² (talk) 11:17, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep- There are plentiful of cited reliable sources and that establish the WP:notability of subject. TariqMahmood09 (talk) 18:33, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:35, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep- Sorry I didn't answer previously, I am the person who created the initial page. I am not a fan of Tony Vitti, just I saw him on TV in the show La Grande Battle and I decided to create a page for Vitti. Know that before doing this, I checked the notability (music) page, and Vitti meets more than one criteria, and so, he is notable. The time spent on TV is not a determinant point of notability. I want to say that a lot of contributors came to the Vitti's page, sometimes wikipedia's administrator. Yes, in france, I have to say bad faith was present, excuse me but, the rules in France are the same here, and haven't been respected. The rules you can read in notability (music) need at least one criteria, as said previously, he meets more than 3, and sorry again but you don't have to interpret the wikipedia's rules as you want. The main point in this deletion page is the notability of Vitti, and this notability is not a point you can fight anymore. This should be a jurisprudencia, at least for these types of questions. And saying "Nothing in AllAboutJazz", then viewing the AllAboutJazz page, then saying it's not an important point to discuss, show again you are contradicting yourselves. Wishing you a happy new year. Frenchytv (talk) 13:42, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 00:06, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Steve Nicholls[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Little has happened in this man's career in the four months since the article was deleted in the previous AFD. He still has just one self-published book to his credit with no assertion of notability, and Worldcat shows that the number of libraries in the US with the book has climbed from five to six. He writes a lot about social media on various websites, but I can find no significant, in-depth coverage of the man from WP:Secondary, WP:Reliable sources that would indicate notability per WP:AUTHOR or WP:GNG. Altered Walter (talk) 12:47, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Altered Walter (talk) 12:47, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Some of the references lead to articles that have nothing to do with the subject. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 08:55, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Promotional article that fails WP:BASIC and WP:AUTHOR. Per nom, I do not see much movement in the past four months. Logical Cowboy (talk) 16:05, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No change since Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Steve Nicholls and still does not meet WP:AUTHOR. Mkdw ^talk 05:32, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. MBisanz ^talk 00:07, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Maxxsonics[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Page describes small, non-notable company, content is a sub-brand list and list of key employees. Most contributions to page by single-purpose account. Company is looking for new editor for this page: [15]. _W^\|/_haledad (Talk to me) 00:56, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Company is not seeking a new editor for this page, they are seeking an editor to work on a Coconut Water project that is not related to Maxxsonics. I have this direct from the Marketing Director H. Christopher Parvin. He chose to post without creating a new profile until they decide whether to go forward with that project.

This is not a non-notable company as they are a major brand distributor and manufacturer of audio electronics that sells multiple product lines in multiple countries. The firm is waiting until the annual CES (consumer electronics show) in January to update product lines and website. They have contacted me and asked me to hold off on updating more content until after the launch at CES. If the company is looking for a new editor of this page they will contact me directly as they have done in the past to provide licensed artwork and requested revisions to same. Please do not delete this page as it will be updated as the company increases their internet presence. Thank You. Gmuth71 (talk) 01:53, 14 December 2012 (UTC)Wikipedia user Gmuth71[reply]

Dude, you really need to have a read of WP:COI, WP:PROMO, WP:N, WP:RS and WP:CORPDEPTH. Being a paid editor for the company or being asked directly by the company to edit their Wikipedia article (and only their article) is an obvious conflict of interest which is always strongly discouraged. You're unlikely to get very far with the argument that editors here should "hold off" on discussing an article's deletion because the company wants you to add more information about its new product lines. Stalwart111 02:13, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Duuude - I am not a paid editor and I am not asking anyone to hold off the discussion, I am responding to the notion that the page isn't well filled in by pointing out that the company and its product line will be changing after CES in January. When did wikipedia change from being a free site for all to post factual information into a judgmental 'my contributions are better than your contributions' club of wiki-snobs? I'd love to contribute more on wiki but right now I hold 3 jobs...in reality......outside the interweb. Thanks. Gmuth71 (talk) 00:32, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia didn't change - Wikipedia has never been the place to promote a business, whether you are being paid to do so or your are being asked to do so as a volunteer. Stalwart111 01:35, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Providing factual information is not promotion, there is a vast differentiation between promotional literature and fact. Are you sure you understand wikipedia or are you having a bitter moment because this page is factual. Witch hunt anyone? Gmuth71 (talk) 02:37, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Providing factual information can be promotional and this is a great example. WP:PROMO is as much about context as it is about content and goes hand-in-hand with WP:NOTHERE. Factual is one thing - an encyclopaedic summary of the company's history, product lines, key people, financial history, important breakthroughs, etc. Promotion is another - dot-point lists of company products, logos with direct links to product promotional pages and very little encyclopaedic information. This article represents the latter. I don't doubt the information is factual, in fact I'm sure it is. But it is not presented in an encyclopaedic fashion from a non-promotional neutral point of view. Those are not reasons to delete (and you'll notice I've not actually "voted" for deletion) but if the article is not cleaned up you'll have a tough time convincing other editors that this is a good faith attempt to build Wikipedia. Stalwart111 02:42, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
As a sign of good faith, I've had a crack at editing the article to bring it into line with Wikipedia's manuals of style - removing BOLD headings, direct links to company sites from within the article, bold and italic names of products (just not necessary) and some dot-point style "information" from each of the sub-sections. I've also created a new "history" section. These articles can often be saved and this is a fairly large company that would seem to pass WP:CORPDEPTH. But pictogramming a company press release and calling it a Wikipedia article will not get you very far. Stalwart111 03:05, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank You Stalwart for your editing for WP:MOS and providing some useful feedback. This admitted wiki-noob is happy to take constructive criticism under advisement. Gmuth71 (talk) 03:12, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. I would again, though, counsel against editing with a conflict of interest. This is strongly discouraged for a range of reasons. Hiring editors or giving instructions to editors or using Wikipedia to promote or raise awareness of a company is always frowned upon. If you really are in contact with the company's marketing director (as you suggest above) then I would strongly counsel you to advise him not to "engage" Wikipedia in that way. It can only end badly for him, the company and probably for you. Stalwart111 03:46, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

CES is not aware that Maxxsonics will be exhibiting at CES 2013. _W^\|/_haledad (Talk to me) 03:54, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Correct, CES is not a listed exhibitor but will be exhibiting in the area directly surrounding the CES show. I have queried the company for further details. Whaledad, clearly you are not versed in the audio electronics industry. Gmuth71 (talk) 00:44, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you care to peruse the information, here are several resources supporting Maxxsonics participation in CES 2013 as well as the upgrading of the company's several products and product lines. Maxxsonics 2013 CES Launch Activities, 12 Volt News Article 'Maxxsonics Welcomes All, CES 2013 Events, CE Outlook Article, Maxxsonics collaborates with West Coast Customs to Provide Amps and Speakers Under the West Coast Customs Brand Name Gmuth71 (talk) 00:58, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I take serious offense to your claim that my contributions here show that I'm not versed in the audio electronics industry. More important however is your claim that your links show that Maxxsonics is participating in CES 2013. Your links ONLY show that Maxxsonics is in Las Vegas at the time of CES 2013 and is organizing a few gatherings close to CES 2013, thereby flagrantly abusing the CES trademark and logo. I hope you understand (and make your buddy at Maxxsonics understand) that this is a serious faux pas for which CES could potentially claim a large amount in damages. _W^\|/_haledad (Talk to me) 22:40, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 04:42, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 04:42, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 04:42, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment A Google News search[16] reveals the subject could squeak by with a very small article that passes WP:V, but the current article is WP:NOT as a directory of product listings and promotion. It could be a decent 3-paragraph article. In these cases, editors will most likely take the path of least resistance, to delete the article until an impartial editor takes an interest, rather than deal with COI issues on such a small article. Unless of course the AfD process itself makes an editor take an interest in improving it in the interest of saving the article. CorporateM (Talk) 19:00, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It would appear as though it matters not if I as the original author would make edits to trim the article and make it more conforming to the points made in this discussion, although if a consensus would allow that in order to consider not deleting the article, I will gladly make such efforts in the next week as time allows. IF no, please advise and I will heed the advice and suggestions during future edits of other topics (again as time allows). Thanks Gmuth71 (talk) 01:20, 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, MBisanz ^talk 00:17, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not sourced by independent sources, created by an SPA, and not notable. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 13:12, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

'non-notable' comment is a restatement of original author of this deletion discussion article and has been successfully disproved by the same discussion above. All sources are non-SM generated and independent and additional sources have been added to the discussion above. Would disagree with the 'SPA' accusation but have nothing to support that at this time due to the constraints of time and other responsibility this author must tend to. Gmuth71 (talk) 14:29, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I do not see where notability has been proven. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 15:01, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - A quick search through ProQuest Newsstand revealed the following sources, in addition to the ones already used in the current WP entry:
- Sudick, Jennifer (1 Mar 2006). "Maxxsonics goal: Stay under the radar to do well in market". Daily Herald.
- Pohl, Kimberly (24 Dec 2005). "Mobile sound system company stays on the move". Daily Herald.

Because reliable, independent, secondary sources provide significant coverage (albeit at a local level), the company meets WP:ORG. Even if the article was edited by an SPA with a COI, that's not grounds for deletion. Instead, the article should be tagged for further editing by an unbiased user. Edge3 (talk) 03:54, 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, Wily D 12:11, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - COI issues not withstanding, company meets WP:ORG. Additionally, User:Gmuth71 should be topic banned from editing this article. (At least until such time as the editor understands how Wikipedia works) --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 09:02, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Per Sue Rangell there are sufficient secondary sources. That said, the article needs to be attacked with a machete, and I concur with topic banning Gmuth71 from this article. PianoDan (talk) 23:46, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It is an absolutely notable company, and in the article tere are reliable sources. Samuel petan (talk) 18:51, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) —Theopolisme (talk) 23:39, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Heather McCartney[edit]

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

No individual notability beyond being the adopted daughter of someone notable. Insufficient coverage in third party reliable sources. -- Mufka ^(u) ^(t) ^(c) 11:02, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The article has a link to an interview with the UK's Daily Telegraph newspaper – is that not a reliable third party source?--Pawnkingthree (talk) 17:27, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The article has a link to a forum post that mentions an article in the Daily Telegraph. Lots of people get interviewed by one newspaper. Are there any sources that mention her without the primary focus of the source being that she's Paul's daughter? -- Mufka ^(u) ^(t) ^(c) 21:11, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Is this the same Heather McCartney? Rlendog (talk) 01:56, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No. See this. -- Mufka ^(u) ^(t) ^(c) 02:03, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep, because someone didn't read WP:PEOPLE. Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 04:48, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What part of WP:BIO does this individual meet? -- Mufka ^(u) ^(t) ^(c) 21:11, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BIO states that "If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability," with the caveat that " trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources may not be sufficient to establish notability." It is the quantity of the secondary coverage that is most important, and not necessarily the nature of it. As an example (not WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, just a demonstration of this principle in action), we have the article Chesley Sullenberger, even though next to all coverage he has received is directly related to the US Airways Flight 1549 incident.

I am not certain as to whether or not the "Young Black and White Printer of the Year Award" meets the "well-known and significant award or honor" criterion or not; someone else may be able to provide more input on that. Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 02:19, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think we're looking at multiple instances of trivial coverage. She wouldn't be considered for inclusion if she wasn't Paul's daughter. -- Mufka ^(u) ^(t) ^(c) 00:12, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 17:18, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 17:18, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep yeepsi (Time for a chat?) 23:32, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. - Per Evan. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 01:05, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:40, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Iron Man: Rise of Technovore[edit]

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

Fails WP:NOTFILM Darkness Shines (talk) 10:39, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nom. Mr T ^(Talk?) ^{(New thread?)} 11:14, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. GregorB (talk) 16:34, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; Two cents - submitted a similar article for creation that was declined for failing to meet notability guidelines and having too few sources. The information on this page is scanter than the one that was declined. LoveWaffle (talk) 19:22, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Not notable --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 09:09, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. --Calathan (talk) 22:47, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:TOOSOON and WP:N until more sources comming along showing notability there is not much we can do. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 23:03, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Retarget to Iron Man in other media#Film this is mentioned in that section and unless there is a question regarding the existence of the work that sees to be a good location for this information and therefore a good location to send readers to if they wanted to look this up.--70.49.80.250 (talk) 23:09, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Iron Man in other media#Film. Mkdw ^talk 09:52, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:32, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Eitoku sugimori[edit]

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

non-notable, WP:BIO Skrelk (talk) 09:50, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:BIO JayJay^{What did I do?} 16:50, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Not notable Fails WP:BLP and WP:ARTIST --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 09:11, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Note that he is active in Japan mostly under the name すぎもりえいとく, though there are some sources that give 杉森永徳. Michitaro (talk) 19:58, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete. That said, I can't find anything substantial in Japanese other than this article on him by the city hall of his hometown. Everything else in English and Japanese seems to be just gallery profiles or catalog listings of his book. Fails WP:ARTIST. Michitaro (talk) 20:04, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Even if there were sources in Japanese, due to WP:Verifiable the article would only be suitable for the Japanese Wikipedia. Seeing that no sources seem to exist in general it does not meet WP:BLP. Mkdw ^talk 21:47, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Just a point of information, but WP:VERIFIABLE in no way excludes foreign language sources from the English Wikipedia (see WP:NONENG). Japanese language sources are just as relevant for determining notability here as on the Japanese Wikipedia. Of the dozens of Japan-related AfDs I have participated in, Japanese sources have been used constantly. The problem with this article is that it is a Japan-related subject with not even enough Japanese sources to prove notability. Michitaro (talk) 17:25, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 17:12, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 17:12, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 17:12, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:32, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Fish Bread[edit]

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

No cited information; just a recipe with no encyclopedic information provided. PROD'd in August, but PROD was removed with the suggestion that the page be moved to books, with no further action taken. Achowat (talk) 08:56, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per WP:OR Not notable no citations or sources at all. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 09:12, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete Pure WP:OR PianoDan (talk) 23:49, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 17:08, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:32, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Shannon Chandler[edit]

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

With only three acting roles (one of which was just a video short), no major fan base (Searching her name on the internet comes up with a whole bunch of other people who have the same name), and no evidence of any contributions in the entertainment industry or her ever returning to acting, Shannon Chandler very clearly fails WP:NACTOR. Being nominated for a Hollywood Reporter award does not matter because WP policies do not state anything about awards as "notable" (e.g. even if an actor wins a million awards for a role, if that one role is all they did, they still fail WP:NACTOR) The Legendary Ranger (talk) 23:03, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 22:20, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Appears to have only one significant role as the red beetleborg in a TV series. I can find no coverage about he in independent reliable sources including her role as a beetleborg. -- Whpq (talk) 17:41, 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 01:01, 24 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) 01:33, 31 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 31. Snotbot t • c » 08:49, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete She being in 49 episodes of Big Bad Beetleborgs as the significant recurring character of Jo McCormick the Red Striker Beetleborg might have gone far toward meeting WP:ENT had this person not stopped acting 13 years ago. Her work as a then-child-actress might have led to a career to meet WP:ENT and coverage to meet WP:GNG.... but as the child has left the industry at 14, best that we let her remain a mention in the Beetleborg article as she has no independent notability. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 21:07, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 00:07, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

List of streaming websites[edit]

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

Unsourced, redlinky. Definition too wide — are we talking about streaming video? Audio? Both? Seems to serve no purpose that a category can't. Deprodded by author for no reason. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 08:43, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Actually, in response to the prodding of List of fastest-selling products, and many other articles simultaneously, I responded: "[This article should be AFD'd instead] because I think...this article, like the other articles which you have prodded for deletion, are not worthy of deletion, and rather than argue with you one on one I think a community discussion would be much more fruitful... especially in regard to the directory-type articles - a new form of article that many editors showed their support for at one of the AFD discussions". I deprodded the article as that action had not been taken, and I did not want to see the article prematurely deleted. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of criticism and critique articles for further discussion on these types of articles.--Coin945 (talk) 09:01, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Streaming media, can mean audio and/or video, useful list that doesn't need to be deleted JayJay^{What did I do?} 21:05, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ITSUSEFUL is not a valid argument. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 21:43, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I guess a category would be better. JayJay^{What did I do?} 16:45, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Not notable and "Useful" is not a good enough point.--Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 09:18, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
'delete unbounded list - Nabla (talk) 02:10, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as creator. Articles can coexist with categories... nothing wrong with that at all. Maybe the criteria for inclusion needs a bit of redefining, but I think the topic is a sound one.--Coin945 (talk) 03:22, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:51, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:51, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not because of the article can coexist with category rationale, but the term "Streaming media" is such a vague term it makes the list violates WP:NOR and I don't think redefining will salvage this list. Secret ^account 18:26, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:IINFO. This is a ridiculously common feature of websites these days, maybe not quite as bad as something like "list of websites that take credit card payments", but heading there. I disagree with nearly every deletion rationale above, however. Utility is relevant to lists because their validity comes, in part, from the usefulness in organizing and presenting encyclopedic information. And per WP:CLN, whether this is duplicative of a category is irrelevant; moreover, there is no such category, nor should there be for the same reasons this list should not exist. postdlf (talk) 19:00, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Sorry, but this list article has too wide of an inclusion criteria, in which any website that has streaming capabilities could be added to it. For example, every news network that has streaming video on their website could be added to it, along with blogs, fansites, advertising sites, etc. See also: the essay WP:LISTCRUFT. Northamerica1000^(talk) 10:57, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 00:07, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

List of controversy articles[edit]

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

Unnecessary list, does nothing that a category can't. Deprodded by author for no reason. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 08:41, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Actually, in response to the prodding of List of fastest-selling products, and many other articles simultaneously, I responded: "[This article should be AFD'd instead] because I think...this article, like the other articles which you have prodded for deletion, are not worthy of deletion, and rather than argue with you one on one I think a community discussion would be much more fruitful... especially in regard to the directory-type articles - a new form of article that many editors showed their support for at one of the AFD discussions". I deprodded the article as that action had not been taken, and I did not want to see the article prematurely deleted. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of criticism and critique articles for further discussion on these types of articles.--Coin945 (talk) 09:01, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Not notable as an article, should be a category --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 09:21, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
delete. Do we create lists grouping by the presence of a given word in title? - Nabla (talk)
- I don't see why not.... I think it's actually a very useful form of navigation throughout Wikipedia. Yes, perhaps this one is the broadest of the bunch (so delete away, if you must), but I think the thinking behind these types of articles' existence is sound.--Coin945 (talk) 05:04, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - No it is not, I think. The connection between the articles is slim, so a person reading one of them is hardly interested in another, and almost surely not interested in reading the whole bunch. Whatever usefulness it has now will be lost in the near future, because the list(s) is a maintenance nightmare, and eventually may even became detrimental because it will look like a complete list but it will lack a bunch of articles, ultimately making them harder to find, thus harder to navigate. - Nabla (talk) 10:27, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    - I guess you're going to have to face that with any really long list article you have, like Lists of lists of lists.... hmmmm..... :/--Coin945 (talk) 03:26, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:47, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 00:07, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

List of bibliography lists[edit]

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

Unnecessary list, does nothing that a category can't. Deprodded by author for no reason. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 08:41, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Actually, in response to the prodding of List of fastest-selling products, and many other articles simultaneously, I responded: "[This article should be AFD'd instead] because I think...this article, like the other articles which you have prodded for deletion, are not worthy of deletion, and rather than argue with you one on one I think a community discussion would be much more fruitful... especially in regard to the directory-type articles - a new form of article that many editors showed their support for at one of the AFD discussions". I deprodded the article as that action had not been taken, and I did not want to see the article prematurely deleted. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of criticism and critique articles for further discussion on these types of articles.--Coin945 (talk) 09:01, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Due the very broad scope of this list, Category:Bibliographies is sufficient unless we want a huge list. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 13:21, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - good grief --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 09:23, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
delete - per Sue_Rangell :-) - Nabla (talk) 02:12, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Hyperboliciousness is all fun and all, but coming back to reality for a bit, what is your actual argument for why the article (and articles like it) do not deserve a place on Wikipedia? :)--Coin945 (talk) 05:01, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"coming back to reality"?! The list is impossible to use due to its size - if it provided some structure, maybe, maybe, it would have some use. Anyway the list is impossible to maintain, adds nothing to a simple search, and is likely to omit articles amking them harder to find. - Nabla (talk) 10:36, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't mean to cause offense. I was just commenting on the unique argument "good grief", which you supported :). At the very least, this article would be very useful for Wikipedians to analyse the various different articles in this "article type", and see what makes a good or bad article. These biography articles are actually a subset of lists, and must therefore have their own style. Some articles do a good job of this, and others do not. Having all of them in one place makes it a lot easier to compare and contrast. At most, this article could hopefully lead to a much better, and better navigated Wikipedia.--Coin945 (talk) 03:31, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bibliographies-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:46, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:46, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - This article should be called Index of topical bibliography articles. It is clearly an index (see Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Lists#Types_of_lists), and the header does not allow author bibliographies. RockMagnetist (talk) 17:01, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Categories and lists on the same topic are allowed: Wikipedia:Categories, lists, and navigation templates. RockMagnetist (talk) 18:55, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - The best way of estimating the potential size of this list is a table of lists covered by WikiProject Bibliographies. There are 514 bibliographies, about half of which are topical. RockMagnetist (talk) 19:16, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - usually an AfD on a list is decided by notability. The appropriate criteria for lists are discussed at WP:LISTN. Sources must be found for the list as a list. RockMagnetist (talk) 19:28, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, shall we have a "List of lists of lists" next? This is what categories are for. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 11:04, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- ...Holy shit, we do. Come on... Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 11:06, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. The nominator has stated that they want the article to be retained (see their comment at the end of this discussion), because it has been completely reworked. Furthermore, no delete !votes have been posted (other than the retracted deletion nomination). (Non-administrator closure.) Northamerica1000^(talk) 13:39, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Pact (three doctors)[edit]

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

Completely unsourced, no publisher or author - who are the "three doctors". Is it an autobiography or a novel? No evidence at all of notability, beyond an unsourced cliam of charting in a US local newspaper, most of text is a plot summary Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:53, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. This appears to be about the non-fiction book The Pact by three men who made an agreement not to fall victim to "the Street". I'm going to clean it up, but I'm going to say that it's definitely notable, as it's used heavily in schools and is the focus of The Pact (2006 film). It just needs a LOT of cleanup.Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 08:44, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I've pretty much re-written the article from scratch, linking to the appropriate sources and whatnot. I admit that the early article was fairly rough and if not for seeing a ton of these sell at various local bookstores in the "required school reading" areas, I wouldn't have been able to immediately identify it. In any case, it now passes WP:NBOOK, although I notice that most of the articles for the Three Doctors are in need of a lot of TLC.Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 09:46, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, good save. - Mike Rosoft (talk) 10:38, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Many thanks, Tokyogirl, it's not recognisable as the same article. I'm happy for the article to stay if someone will formally close Jimfbleak - talk to me? 11:36, 31 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) —Theopolisme (talk) 23:42, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Emma Degerstedt[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Removed PROD per WP:PROD. Reason was Does not meet the criteria for WP:NACTOR Oddly, the original AFD was closed twice - once as delete and once as keep. Illia Connell (talk) 07:42, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This article is needed as a reference. I noticed it was deleted because I was trying to cross check information on the TV show "Unfabulous" and she is the only regular cast member that is missing. Wikipedia is less useful when it is incomplete. 99.129.133.9 (talk) 16:28, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

- - "all the other kids got articles, so she should have one too is not a valid rationale. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 13:06, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It appears that the article was only a stub when it was previously nominated for deletion. I have updated the format to make it more in line with wiki standards and have received permission to use an image to balance the appearance. I plan to increase the biography once I have confirmed additional details. TigerPaw2154 (talk) 17:02, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for nowDelete with no prejudice towards a future article. It seems she has been more active with theatre productions than television and film as Google News found a recent result for a Christmas production in which she sang here. It seems she received good attention for a 2007 production, 13, with results here, here, here, here and another production, Gyspy, with results here (third result from the bottom, the second from the bottom is also for 13). In 2010, she starred in a Huntington Beach production Dark of the Moon with a result here. I also found this which mentions her guest role for Samantha Who. In 2007, she participated in a cancer fundraiser here and Google Books found few results here and here (both for 13) and here (fourth from the top, for Unfabulous). Honestly, she gained a lot of attention for 13 which seems to near the beginning of her career so I attempted to search for any awards for both Emma and the production itself but found none and it seems there have been other productions of 13 with one here. I think she's slightly under the bar notable and she hasn't been very active in the past two years aside from this Christmas production. However, it seems her Twitter profile suggests she is attending UCLA so she may be taking time for that. SwisterTwister talk 21:14, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep From all those internet hits that SwisterTwister was able to find, an article can be maintained using those hits as references. I am willing to cleanup the article to make it look more presentable. QuasyBoy (talk) 04:15, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- comment someone can be named in passing as appearing in many many many productions which verify their existance as a person and an actor, but without actual significant content about the actor themselves, they still fail all the notability guidelines. for example the Variety review of 13, all you have is that she plays the "school princess " - and not a damn word about how well she performs it or any other actual content. And the Playbill coverage is even less, it doesnt even identify her role, just lists her as a cast member-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 13:04, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The actress in question passes notability guidelines. I am surprised Swister Twister voted delete. They provided various sources to indicate some notability. She is taking a break. Big deal. There are several actors out there on hiatus who may come back into the field, but have left an impression of notoriety. Tinton5 (talk) 21:47, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Very well, I will improve the article later tonight. I actually thought of voting keep but I thought the work was still insufficient but I do recognize the significance of her 13 work. SwisterTwister talk 23:29, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 17:06, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per meeting WP:ENT (IE: major recurring character in 32 episodes of Unfabulous for which she received a 2005 Young Artist Awards nomination). While certainly she has done many minor roles (as has all actors), we do not judge actors only by the least of what they have done. Article state is poor but addressable [17] and an encyclopedic article can be built and mainatined. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 23:07, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I have significantly improved the article and believe this should hold until she continues acting again. @MichaelQSchmidt - it actually seems she was nominated for two Young Artist Awards. SwisterTwister talk 03:31, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Mars Attacks!. MBisanz ^talk 00:08, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Byron Williams (fictional character)[edit]

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

I am nominating this for AFD because it fails the notability criteria for a stand-alone article. Also, this article uses IMDB as a source, which is unfortunately considered unreliable by Wikipedia standards. I am unable to find any secondary sources to verify the character's notability. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 06:13, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 06:28, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 06:28, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The article has been around for 5 years... so either it was thought notable enough by some to not be nominated until now, or it simply flew below the radar. Interestingly enough, and though not used to cite the article, sources definitely exist providing commentary and analysis of this fictional character,[18][19][20] so the article is definitely improvable. We might redirect this for now to Mars Attacks!#Cast where it is logical for this fictional character to be listed. ANd if someone wishes to work on it out of mainspace, we can userfy a version so that available sources can be used to flesh it out before a possible return. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 07:22, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Mars Attacks!. There may be sources available to improve this article significantly, but currently it is just plot description and an attempt to reconstruct the fictional boxing career of this fictional character based on limited dialogue references in the film, and the sources that have been mentioned in this AfD so far don't look very promising. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 09:36, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The sources to which MichaelQSchmidt refers appear to be little more than passing mentions in plot synopses as far as I can tell. This is a combination of plot rehashing and absurd WP:OR. A boxing record that includes a KO "loss" against 50 Martians in a varying number of rounds? (Either the Extraterrestrial Boxing Association or Don King must have sanctioned this "bout".) Clarityfiend (talk) 10:41, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I did not opine a keep of this poor article... only a cheap redirect to the one place where it makes sense to enlighten Wikipedia readers about this fictional character in context to the film in which he is presented. If or when someone ever offers a better written and better sourced article, we can re-examine it for suitability or not for inclusion. No more. No less. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 22:21, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Huuh? Where did I say you voted keep? P.S. Whoever wrote this steaming pile needs to learn arithmetic. The infobox gives four total fights, four wins by knockout and a no contest, while further down, it claims four bouts, three wins by knockout, no losses or draws, just above a table showing a loss. 4=5? 4=3? Must be Martian math. Clarityfiend (talk) 23:06, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - Would a redirect somehow not serve the project or its readers? Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 04:06, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails all measures --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 09:27, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect, and merge if anything is appropriate. The delete votes above are not policy-based in that they ignore WP:ATD. Jclemens (talk) 22:44, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- What is the potential that this character will ever merit a standalone article? Zilch, unless someone conducts a groundbreaking study on boxing as a deterrent to alien invasion. There is no media coverage singling out any of the main characters, much less this minor one. Clarityfiend (talk) 01:01, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete due to lack of stand-alone notability, with no salvageable content. A search engine test does not show notoriety for this character beyond this film. Redirecting is not helpful since the present article title is not a plausible search term. I'm fine with keeping mention of the character at the Byron Williams disambiguation page. Erik (talk | contribs) 15:38, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not enough real world coverage. If the article was at Byron Williams then this could have worked as a redirect, but since that's a disambiguation, I'm afraid that deletion is the only option. If there's anything that needs to be merged to Mars Attacks! then do so. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 04:55, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:31, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Scott Roulet[edit]

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

Biographical article about an American businessman. Claims to royalty aside, the principal claim to notability launching the first online webcast of a musical concert in 1999 is backed up with a press release by the company, which quotes another of the company's executives. I could not find another supporting reference for it. Appears to fail WP:GNG and WP:BIO. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 05:26, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I can't find any reliable, independent and substantial evidence confirming that Scott Roulet meets our notability requirements. --Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 06:38, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Puff piece --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 09:28, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:33, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. postdlf (talk) 05:53, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Backstreet Boys' eighth studio album[edit]

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

Another WP:NALBUMS/WP:CRYSTAL failure, exhibiting the problems noted in WP:HAMMER. No confirmed title, tracklist, or release date, the article is a collection of Twitter-sourced rumors. Anything that is decently sourced is padding that isn't directly about any confirmed attribute of the album. —Kww(talk) 03:41, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:CRYSTAL. LK (talk) 04:17, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:CRYSTAL and WP:NALBUMS. TBr and ley ^{(what's up)} 04:56, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:CRYSTAL. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 13:22, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per above three --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 09:30, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Snow delete? per above all JayJay^{What did I do?} 03:44, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:56, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. postdlf (talk) 05:55, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Up Goes Maisie[edit]

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

Article seems to be an orphan and is unreferenced. Intoronto1125Talk Contributions 03:38, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as creator. Did you click on What links here? Nine links hardly make it an orphan. Also, I've added reviews. Clarityfiend (talk) 04:16, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The film is part of a fairly popular series starring Ann Sothern. There's also plenty of sources (reviews) in the article right now that establish its notability. Pinkadelica ^♣ 13:24, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:29, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep per The New York Times review, though I'm not crazy about the TV Guide and AllRovi capsule reviews. Google Books Search results are pretty sparse with nothing in Google Scholar Search, but I'm assuming that this is both the age of the film and its relative lack of significance. Is there anything more that can be found? Erik (talk | contribs) 18:32, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Normally I stay away from AllRovi references, but in this case, it ties in nicely with both Crowther's complaint and the aviation film category. As for TV Guide, it's a reliable enough source (and pretty much spot on with its observations about this film). Clarityfiend (talk) 00:59, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per User:Clarityfiend and his continued work on the article as its author. We do not expect that a comedy film from 1946 would have the same type of ongoing coverage and analysis as do more recent blockbusters. WP:NTEMP. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 23:58, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:31, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Native (album)[edit]

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

Yet another WP:NALBUMS, WP:CRYSTAL, and WP:V failure. No confirmed tracklist, release date or title. Only source that isn't a tweet is a People magazine ad for a perfume. —Kww(talk) 03:32, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:CRYSTAL. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 13:24, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Not notable --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 09:31, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:58, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Nagpur#Shopping. MBisanz ^talk 00:08, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Empress City Mall, Nagpur[edit]

AfDs related/similar to this article:

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

Flat-out fails WP:GNG and WP:G11. It has not been a subject of significant coverage in secondary sources. Period. Mr T ^(Talk?) ^{(New thread?)} 18:12, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:47, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Shopping malls-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:47, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, plenty of google hits. Mentioned in national media, such as http://articles.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/2010-12-18/nagpur/28229213_1_parking-problems-traffic-police-motorists . see also http://www.nagpurtoday.in/due-to-negligence-of-empress-mall-youth-stuck-in-lift/ There is an article about the mall in Economic Times, but it is not freely available --Soman (talk) 09:10, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

See, plenty of google hits may not be proof of the subject's notability. One does not need to create an article on a news story covered in 109 newspapers. Besides, the page you linked, that is simply coverage of an event (maybe it is non-notable itself). Articles will not simply be kept because they are of timely importance. Per WP:NOTNEWSPAPER - Wikipedia considers the enduring notability of persons and events. While news coverage can be useful source material for encyclopedic topics, most newsworthy events do not qualify for inclusion. For example, routine news reporting on things like announcements, sports, or celebrities is not a sufficient basis for inclusion in the encyclopedia. Timely news subjects not suitable for Wikipedia may be suitable for our sister project Wikinews. Mr T ^(Talk?) ^{(New thread?)} 13:35, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The question is: Is the place notable? From what I read on the web it appears to be one the larger malls in the region. We do have articles for malls of similar scale and visibility like Garuda Mall, Mantri Square. There even a List of shopping malls in India Our treatment ought to be uniform and consistent. Arunram (talk) 12:24, 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, MBisanz ^talk 01:32, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Notability is inherited, the mall itself is not notable. 1292simon (talk) 02:09, 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, —Tom Morris (talk) 23:28, 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, Courcelles 00:59, 24 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 03:17, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but stubify, or remove promotional unsourced material and improve per sources found by Soman. LK (talk) 03:35, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Why esp. when it fails WP:GNG so blatantly? Mr T ^(Talk?) ^{(New thread?)} 04:20, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Nagpur#Shopping - The two news articles provided by Soman are not sufficient for notability as one mentions traffic issues and the other an incident involving an elevator malfunctioning. A Google News search provided this, this and this (all three announce when the mall opened), this and this (both of these mention one of the retail stores, Pantaloon), this (mentions a construction incident involving injuries and death) and this and this (parking incidents). I found other links but they were either blacklist websites or simply not useful. The property's owner has a page on this mall which mentions the architect, Hafeez, here, which is currently mentioned in the article. It's possible some sources may not be English but I doubt it because English is probably mainly used with business in India especially with modern structures like malls. However, this amount of coverage does make it relevant to Nagpur so a redirect would be a good option. SwisterTwister talk 06:55, 31 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. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:31, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Raju Parulekar[edit]

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

Non-notable TV host, journalist and political analyst. Thine Antique Pen (talk) 19:26, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Anbu121 (talk me) 05:16, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Anbu121 (talk me) 05:16, 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 01:14, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete Found a few sources but don't suggest notability. JayJay^{Talk to me} 04:22, 24 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 03:11, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Not notable --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 09:39, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. It's been relisted 3 times and clearly there is no consensus (non-admin closure) Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 04:04, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Aliya (singer)[edit]

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

Fails WP:NMUSIC. Unsigned (and seemingly never signed) artist, released one single seven years ago that supposedly got press. Her other singles are only listed on her website. Has a 2012 album release on "Interscope Digital Distribution," which is not Interscope Records, but actually turns out to be TuneCore [21]. No non-personal GHits on first page, after which the WP mirror list begins. MSJapan (talk) 22:48, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — sparklism ^hey! 12:18, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I was inclined to delete this article but there does seem to be on the face of it quite a bit of noteriety in the former USSR for her TV appearances even if she has not made it in English speaking markets. One thing that is concerning is that neither the person who put the original article (a redirect) nor the editor who first fleshed this out was informed? Isn't that bad form? JASpencer (talk) 11:18, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment See here, where the person the automatic tools indicate is the creator was informed. There is no requirement to inform every editor who has ever worked on an article when it is sent to AfD. I would highly suggest that the closing admin look at the timing of the above vote, as JASpencer is stalking my contribs due to a dispute on another article in this same time frame. The basis of the vote is to claim impropriety on my part, not to make a good-faith vote on an article. "On the face of it" is not a policy-based argument, and certainly doesn't cut it when you cannot read the source language. MSJapan (talk) 23:08, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please stop throwing around allegations MSJapan? I commented on this because you already have had Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2012_December_15#Tahoe-LAFS complaints on this type of behaviour. Criticism is not stalking, and please stop flattering yourself otherwise. JASpencer (talk) 23:52, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And why are you a) bringing up another discussion here, and b) why were you involved in that discussion? You keep walking into discussions you are not involved in simply to offer "criticism" of me, which is exactly what you're doing here. Next stop, ANI. MSJapan (talk) 00:11, 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, —Theo polisme 13:52, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete - the puls.by source mentions that Aliya's "Here comes the time" and "Remember Me" were "actively broadcasted on national radio" (according to the Google translation), which would make her satisfy WP:MUSBIO's criterion no. 11, but the source doesn't say anything else about her, and I cannot find other sources. A single source with that little information is insufficient to write a verifiable article on her. Huon (talk) 15:51, 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, Courcelles 01:21, 24 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 03:04, 31 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. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:31, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Bforex Group[edit]

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

Namely primary sources and said to be a scam. ⊾maine12329⊿ talk 11:41, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 17:30, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 17:30, 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 01:22, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Non-notable and spamish. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 04:00, 24 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 03:03, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Puffery --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 09:42, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete At present, this article has nothing to establish encyclopedic notability per WP:CORP or WP:WEB. The whole article reads like a promo. Mkdw ^talk 09:38, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:31, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Brian Donnelly (artist)[edit]

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

This has been tagged for notability issues since 2010. Donnelly is a young artist and so far has only a few sources available, mostly promotional pieces and brief mentions. As per WP:ARTIST, his exhibition record is limited a handful of small solo local shows and some art fairs. This is a case of WP:TOOSOON and does not satisfy WP:GNG yet. freshacconci talktalk 15:49, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. freshacconci talktalk 15:53, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Ceoil (talk) 20:20, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:17, 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, Mediran ^{talk to me!} 05:34, 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, Courcelles 01:30, 24 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 03:01, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:ARTIST --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 09:43, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Nothing of substance has been added since it was first tagged regarding notability in 2010. Does not appear to be a serious contender for notability.--Zananiri (talk) 16:59, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 00:08, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

List of programs broadcast by Disney Channel Asia[edit]

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

Contested prod. This article seems to be a laundry list of programming on one Disney Channel. Although programming evolves, the vast majority of Disney channels around the world carry the basically same programming in various configurations, and I fail to see how this article has any encyclopaedic value whether as a historical record or as a list of current programmes being broadcast. Ohconfucius ^{ping / poke} 09:38, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:23, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:23, 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, Mediran ^{talk to me!} 05:26, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and it is difficult to maintain and adds very little useful content. It is also copied into the Disney Channel (Asia) article. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 05:26, 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 01:32, 24 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 03:00, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The programming is unoriginal, so this is basically a duplicate of List of programs broadcast by Disney Channel. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 13:26, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as duplicate material --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 09:44, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep While the article may be a duplicate, the programming must be up to date with changes when neccessary. Hansen Sebastian 11:46, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

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. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:30, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Smoove Gotti[edit]

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

Fails WP:MUSICBIO. Majority of the sources either aren't reliable (Skinny Bluts, East 1999, Psycho Jordan) or are trivial mentions/interviews. Ish dar ian 05:47, 9 December 2012 (UTC) Ish dar ian 05:47, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I was trying to help the article the best I could but idk. There are a few notable releases on it. I added the stub tag for people to add more.Causeandedit (talk) 05:52, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the sources that aren't reliable but still on fence of the overall article.Causeandedit (talk) 05:59, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Couldn't find any significant coverage in reliable sources, or anything that would support an encyclopedia article. --Michig (talk) 11:12, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — sparklism ^hey! 12:39, 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, MBisanz ^talk 02:11, 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, ⋘HueSatLum ? ❢⋙ 17:45, 24 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 02:54, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete; echo Michig's concerns. Unable to find sources. —Theopolisme (talk) 23:44, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:30, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds for Energy-efficient Buildings[edit]

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

an EC project with no third party sources for notability. Those that are 3rd party, such as [22], seem just mentions of individual buildings where thetechnology was applied., or, like [23], do not even mention the project. DGG ( talk ) 18:42, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:58, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:58, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:58, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Lacks significant coverage in reliable independent sources. Fails WP:GNG & WP:ORG.--JayJasper (talk) 18:43, 28 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 02:52, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nominator, pending evidence of (or development of) notability. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 02:11, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep as per the lack of deletion requests outside of the nominator and the fact the article is properly referenced. There is no problem in having a separate discussion on whether this article should be merged or redirected to the article 1906 (novel). A non-admin closure. And Adoil Descended (talk) 01:04, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

1906 (film)[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Removed PROD per WP:PROD (previous AFD). Reason for PROD was Film does not seem to have even entered production yet; WP:CRYSTAL Illia Connell (talk) 02:49, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for the reasons given in the (ahem) 4th AfD nomination, namely that this is a properly-sourced article, and the film is notable for being so much delayed, and discussed as such in multiple reliable sources. A reminder that notability is not temporary may be relevant here, and this challenged production has achieved that. Chiswick Chap (talk) 12:29, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:GNG. It is sufficiently sourced. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 13:27, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: This article is problematic in the sense that it continues to purport an upcoming film, and it is false to claim that. It should not use the film infobox nor the film categories. It could be treated as a "film project" article (though I really dislike that disambiguation term), or it could be merged to 1906 San Francisco earthquake. This can keeps being kicked down the road, and we need to consider summarizing this topic in a more succinct manner. It is really just coverage of plans for a film that, quite realistically, may not ever happen. To cite one such example, Shantaram (film) is a section in the novel's article as something that never came to pass. Erik (talk | contribs) 23:13, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Erik, your example is of a planned film verified as cancelled, not about a speculation that this well-covered topic might be cancelled sometime in the future. As notability for a film's production is dependent on in-depth long-term commentary and analysis, and not to WP:WAX too harshly, we may always consider exceptions.... just as we did for Superman (film project) , The Hobit, The Avengers film project , X-Men: First Class (film project) (et al) based upon the level of long term coverage. Were this some unmade film with only one or two meager sources making some meager announcement, I would tend to agree that it could be written of someplace such as 1906 (novel). However slow moving this project may be, the level of analysis and commentary over such a long period of time renders this topic notable. If it were never to be made, we'd still have a notable topic... per guideline and policy... and could discuss at the speculative future time just where this might be merged if thought neccessary... remembering that even in a film's failure to be made the topic might still be found notable.... through coverage.Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 04:51, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is that this topic is nebulous. This topic is not a film; it is an aggregation of reports on plans for a film. It is a kind of a pseudo-history especially due to incompleteness. If production does start, then the very nature of the topic changes into that of an actual and tangible film. That mutability is why I endorse merging this kind of content to the underlying reason for the coverage. I was mistaken to say that the 1906 San Francisco earthquake would be a place to merge to. It really should be Brad Bird himself; his career is exactly why reports are made about what this director plans to do or what any well-known director plans to do. I do think that the contents of this article could be greatly compressed, especially due to the fact that no film exists right now. Unfortunately, the article sounds like it does, not just in what I mentioned above, but in (at the end) including two block quotes from Brad Bird and somehow extracting 74 words from this that mentions Brad Bird and his project literally in passing. Giving the content an overhaul will give editors a better idea of the most salient details of this director's unfulfilled plans. Erik (talk | contribs) 05:33, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It already has a very brief, proper, but non-comprehensive mention there. As we do have verifibility of its background, history, scheduled director, and completed screen adaptation, the topic of this planned film in pre-production is, just as with the proffered examples of other exceptions, not quite so nebulous as one might assert. And as Brad Bird is souracble for many things beyond just this one project, I would think that any proper merge to the Brad Bird article would overburden the target. User:Robsinden's suggestion below is a more suitable alternative, if not "kept". Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 11:07, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Erik (talk | contribs) 23:38, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per both policy and guideline. Continued coverage, perhaps specially due to its setbacks, which has allowed this one to be one of those very few allowed exceptions to WP:NFF in that the production itself is notable per the notability guidelines and through its meeting the inclusion criteria of WP:CRYSTAL's All articles about anticipated events must be verifiable, and the subject matter must be of sufficiently wide interest that it would merit an article if the event had already occurred. It is appropriate to report discussion and arguments about the prospects for success of future proposals and projects or whether some development will occur, if discussion is properly referenced and in its otherwise surpassing the instructions per WP:GNG's If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article. We CAN speak about this topic somewhere, and WP:NTEMP instructs that we do not require something that hadenough coverage in the past to somehow remain in the news or have continued and ongoing coverage. As for IMDb page on this project not being updated... so what? We're not IMDb. We do not demand nor expect ongoing and continued editing of any article, once notability has been determined. And a point well worth consideration, is that even if not yet greenlit, Brad Bird's wish to make a film about the San Francisco earthquake of 1906 continues to receive coverage:"Brad Bird gives update on his 1906 San Francisco Earthquake Film Project", Geek Tyrant, December 2011 "Brad Bird's Latest '1906' Project Update and Why It's Taking So Long", First Showing, December 2011 "Brad Bird Says The Script For '1906' Is Still In Progress ", MTV, December 2011to support the years of ongoing topic coverage.[24][25] We learn that while the project is by no means dead, his wish to make the film has been held off due to his now directing 1952 for Disney.[26][27][28] AFD's #1 and #2 resulted in deletes in 2007... more than 5 years ago.... reasonable AT THAT TIME the requisite significant coverage of this topic was lacking. Problematic as future films sometimes are, and as many times as some are returned to AFD, earlier consensus should be respected and this well covered topic should not become a WP:KEEPLISTINGTILLITGETSDELETED. That said, guideline itself tells us notability can be established through a film's production meeting notability criteria. Certainly not all future projects are notable... but sometimes one can be found, and we allow such articles. I disagree with User:Erik that this film could be dealt with properly in the already overlong long article 1906 San Francisco earthquake, which deals about a different topic in great detail. Overburden anyone? The article IS about the film after all... and just as policy tells us, it is appropriate to report discussion and arguments about the prospects for success of future proposals and projects or whether some development will occur, if discussion is properly referenced.. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 01:02, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to 1906 (novel). I suggested this at the last AfD, and Schmidt worked on that article to allow for this possibility. This still seems the best solution per WP:NFF to me, and we seem to have a content fork anyway. --Rob Sinden (talk) 09:30, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- If not "kept" per consensus established at the last two AFDs that this topic nerited being an allowable exception to NFF due to years of coverage, commentary, and analysis, a merge and redirect to 1906 (novel)#Film adaptation would be acceptable to me, and I would even assist in doing so as to WP:PRESERVE information that mightotherwise be lost to our readers. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 11:07, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - Just to point out, the closing admin of the last AfD commented "A merge or move can be discussed at the talk page." It appears we never had that discussion! Whilst we all agree the content should be here on Wikipedia, I see no reason for it not to be included on the novel article for the time being. You commented yourself that "if the project were to be cancelled, we could revist the topic of the planned film and speak toward a redirect at the time...". Considering the extended delay, I think we should consider the merge and redirect for now, then split the article once production commences. The work you did before has led to a content fork, where both articles are showing nearly identical information anyway. What is at 1906 (film) is essentially a duplication of 1906 (novel)#Film adaptation. --Rob Sinden (talk) 11:37, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    - Last AFD was one of the reasons I created the target and expanded on the film topic at that location. IF consensus here concludes that the topic IS notable enough to be somehow and in some way written of in Wikipedia, I would be quite happy to discuss and perform a redirect and merge. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 18:41, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to 1906 (novel)#Film adaptation; this article did not even link to the novel article, so I did not realize it existed and already had such a "Film adaptation" section whose content pretty much matches what is here. A stand-alone article is not necessary when there is no film—the only definable topic here—at hand. Like I said above, it is history but not really. I would also recommending tightening up the section at the novel article. I was hoping to give this article an overhaul but now I see too much of a redundant mess to take action at this time. Erik (talk | contribs) 14:59, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: per WP:GNG. It is sufficiently sourced. Not impressed with (ahem) 5th nomination. - Ret.Prof (talk) 19:50, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) —Theopolisme (talk) 23:44, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Anyday[edit]

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

Does not appear to meet WP:BAND or WP:GNG Walter Görlitz (talk) 02:44, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This band meets criterion #1 of WP:BAND and also passes WP:GNG. The Telegram, The Nor'wester, and The Western Star have all written full articles covering this group, and the coverage in these articles is substantial and not trivial according to the criteria listed in those guidelines. Neelix (talk) 03:19, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep I have to agree that in some sort it meets WP:BAND#1, although I'd like to see more coverage. — ΛΧΣ²¹ 03:24, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. The article has multiple non-trivial, reliable sources. ⋘HueSatLum ? ❢⋙ 20:08, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:21, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The references section is longer than the article text and those appear to be credible. Fylbecatulous talk 16:04, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete as per WP:SNOW. Airplaneman ✈ 03:37, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Zest Airways Flight 865[edit]

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

New article by new User, who contested a PROD. The article's creator clearly is having issues with WP:CIR, but we all had to start somewhere. Notwithstanding that, the subject of the article doesn't meet WP:AIRCRASH as noted by the person who PRODded the article, but more to the point, it doesn't meet the WP:GNG either, with nothing beyond reportage that the accident happened. YSSYguy (talk) 02:33, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:AIRCRASH minor incident, no deaths JayJay^{What did I do?} 02:40, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG and WP:AIRCRASH. Ish dar ian 02:59, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I PRODdded the article earlier. Fails WP:AIRCRASH, as I mentioned, and WP:GNG. Wikipedia have more aviation incident articles than anything elseif every little incident had an article.Skrelk (talk) 03:33, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:AIRCRASH. — ΛΧΣ²¹ 03:51, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTNEWS and WP:AIRCRASH....William 10:58, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:AIRCRASH and WP:NOTNEWS. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 13:28, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per AIRCRASH. Mephistophelian (contact) 16:30, 31 December 2012 (UTC).[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. Mephistophelian (contact) 16:30, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete with a plowload of WP:SNOW. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 19:15, 31 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. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:30, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Atarah Richmond[edit]

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

Non-notable artist. Seems to fail WP:GNG with no independent and realible coverage found in a Google News search and a Google News Archive search. Performing in front of the POTUS wouldn't make a person notable, inherently, but you would think it would be mentioned by a news source. Performing with Glee in SF seems to have been an open audition event (see here). I can't verify that the subject did perform with the group and I'm not sure that notability would be established if I could. The BET Comic View Headliner claim - I can't find any mention of it anywhere. Opening for Tommy Davidson doesn't establish notability but I was able to find that it happened. The release of her single "on iTunes and Rhapsody" - she's not on the iTunes store (I don't know how to link the search I did in iTunes) or on Rhapsody. OlYeller21^Talktome 06:54, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 16:34, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails WP:GNG--Nixie9 (talk) 19:22, 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, Courcelles 01:28, 24 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) 01:50, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete doesn't meet the requirements of the GNG. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 05:06, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Primary-source-only biography, falls far short of meeting WP:NMUSIC, WP:ANYBIO etc. AllyD (talk) 07:44, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:30, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Perry Samuel[edit]

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

No assertion of notability. WP:NOTINHERITED. Prod contested Zujua (talk) 09:43, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Zujua (talk) 09:49, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: This article gives no indication of its purpose. הסרפד (Hasirpad) [formerly Ratz...bo] 19:30, 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, Courcelles 01:23, 24 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) 01:48, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Can't tell what this is about, but it fails every notability guidelines in the books. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 06:17, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Possible illegitimate son of the stepfather of Frank and Jesse James really fails WP:NOTINHERITED. Clarityfiend (talk) 01:56, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:30, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Celine Chen[edit]

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

I don't really see anything indicating notability. Probably self-created. Nothing on Google. However, it would be useful if someone who can read Chinese can check the references and see if she has notability in Chinese language sources. Nothing on Google, news archive hits only show a few articles written by Chen. There are assertions of notability so this deserves discussion. Mabalu (talk) 11:35, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I did a search using Google Translate and both character versions of her name, but couldn't find anything to show notability for her. I saw what appears to be some articles written by her, but then I saw a lot of mention for another person by the same name that wasn't her. Unless someone could bring up articles to show notability for her (as opposed to just some of the stuff she's written), then this will have to be a delete from my end. I'm aware that GT has its limitations, so I am open to any new sources coming in.Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 17:41, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. Mabalu (talk) 07:00, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 17:23, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 17:23, 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 01:23, 24 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) 01:48, 31 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 00:10, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Loits[edit]

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

Sorry, but I don't see a single indication that this band is notable. They don't appear to have a record contract with some notable label, they haven't charted as far as I can tell, and they have no otherwise notable members. I can't find anything in terms of sources besides the usual metal zines. They are not notable per WP:BAND or otherwise. Drmies (talk) 19:47, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — sparklism ^hey! 12:18, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Estonia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:41, 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, —Theo polisme 13:53, 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, Courcelles 01:20, 24 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) 01:46, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It seems impossible to source this in any reasonable way; I'm just not finding anything out there that would get them past WP:BAND. Perhaps if someone from Estonia could help us, but otherwise no. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 06:20, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
~~Weak delete~~Comment - Only category where they may come close to passing WP:BAND is being subject of multiple published works. There are some articles [29], [30], [31] but I am unsure about their importance.--Staberinde (talk) 10:23, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. WP:SNOW. postdlf (talk) 05:52, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Zest Airways Flight 863[edit]

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

Not notable per WP:AIRCRASH Skrelk (talk) 01:27, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This looks like just trivial news, not worthy of an article. Delete. - Mike Rosoft (talk) 10:46, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTNEWS and WP:AIRCRASH. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 13:30, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per AIRCRASH. Mephistophelian (contact) 16:30, 31 December 2012 (UTC).[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. Mephistophelian (contact) 16:30, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete' - Completely non-notable--Petebutt (talk) 17:55, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG not to mention WP:NOTNEWS and WP:AIRCRASH ...William 18:46, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 19:16, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as being utterly non-notable. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 19:16, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all above. Mr T ^(Talk?) ^{(New thread?)} 13:03, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:11, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:11, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Non-notable crash without enough coverage in reliable sources. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 15:14, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Blue Badge tourist guide. (non-admin closure) Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 04:16, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Institute of Tourist Guiding[edit]

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

Business self-promotion. Unreferenced, no evidence of notability outside its own promotional material. Andy Dingley (talk) 14:34, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment : This is a government body, not a business. --Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 16:04, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, it's a UK company Andy Dingley (talk) 16:29, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Why does it have a .org.uk address instead of .co.uk? --Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 16:58, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If it's a "government body", why does it have a .org rather than a .gov? I've a bunch of .orgs myself, but I'm not part of the government.I'm part of the Illuminati Andy Dingley (talk) 23:57, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:53, 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 01:14, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. WP:PROMO article about organisation without any notability. 1292simon (talk) 02:47, 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 01:14, 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) 00:31, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect (with or without selective merge) to Blue Badge tourist guide. The organisation definitely has some notability as the English professional body for tourist guides. However, the notability seems to be largely if not entirely to do with the professional qualifications it awards, of which the Blue Badge is the main one. So it would probably be best treated for the moment with a short section (a paragraph or so) there, whether taken from the current article or freshly written, with a redirect from the current article title. PWilkinson (talk) 14:36, 27 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) 01:27, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirecting seems to be the best solution indeed.--Ymblanter (talk) 17:19, 31 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 - no consensus. CaptainPrimo (talk) 06:42, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Jan Jananayagam[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

DELETE Politician who has not won anything (never elected to anything) and has not received significant coverage outside of self-published sources (her organizations) or around 1 event. WP:BLP1E would rule out having an article because she got the most votes for an independent candidate while losing. Only covered for single event and this event is not well-documented and not of long lasting importance.

As an activist she has only attracted trivial coverage: representative of so and so group Jan said 'such and such'. Many of these mentions are also in promotional material from her organizations. Being interviewed on a news program does not merit notability. A daily news program interviews many people most of them not notable and only significant as presenting an opinion to a wider notable issue.

So basically a low profile individual -- May have been quoted or even profiled in a local or special-interest newspaper, website, magazine or other publication. May have been interviewed by a major news source as a "mouthpiece" – i.e., as part of his/her job as a spokesperson for an employer, representing that party not him/herself. Wikipedia:Who_is_a_low_profile_individual -- a person likely to remain a low-profile individual is not notable. CaptainPrimo (talk) 00:37, 31 December 2012 (UTC) — CaptainPrimo (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Keep - According to this BBC article on her, which is far more than "trivial" nor "self published" as the nom claims, she is "one of the most successful independent candidates ever." --Oakshade (talk) 02:57, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

She lost and hasn't contested anything since. Being the most successful independent candidate in one election while not winning is not notable. It's one event and a violation of WP:BLP1E as I already said. CaptainPrimo (talk) 05:22, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You'll have to take up your contention that being one of the most successful independent candidates ever isn't notable with the BBC News. I have to type this in many AfD's; WP:BLP1E does not and has never "banned" articles on people notable for only one event. It is simply a guideline on how to deal with people notable for one event.--Oakshade (talk) 05:35, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What? She's not one of the most successful independent candidates ever. If that is true then no independent candidate has ever got more than 2% of the vote. The article says she was one of the most successful candidates in that election. BBC News has articles on a wide variety of things. Adam Lanza for example but he isn't notable enough to have an article according to Wikipedia.http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-20738732

I suggest your read BLP1E like I did. should generally avoid having an article on a person when each of three conditions is met:A. If reliable sources cover the person only in the context of a single event.B. If that person otherwise remains, and is likely to remain, a low-profile individual. Biographies in these cases can give undue weight to the event and conflict with neutral point of view. In such cases, it is usually better to merge the information and redirect the person's name to the event article. It is not the case that the event is significant and the individual's role within it is substantial and well-documented—as in the case of John Hinckley, Jr., who shot President Ronald Reagan in 1981.

Now tell me how she does not meet all three of this conditions because to me she certainly does. BBC only covers her as a candidate and has not covered her since meeting point A, she remains a low-profile individual as noted in the nomination, and the individual's role is not well-documented -- no other sources tout how successful she is. CaptainPrimo (talk) 05:45, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Her biography information in the BBC News article (and many others) is outside the scope of the election. BLP1E is meant to discourage articles about private individuals who unwittingly found themselves in the news. This person very willingly place herself in a very public political arena. As Wikipedia:Who is a low profile individual, which even you had linked so presumably value, indicates, this person does not fit any of its criteria of "low profile."--Oakshade (talk) 05:57, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What biography information? That she is a "former banker" and an "It consultant"? I challenge you to show the "many other" articles that document her. CaptainPrimo (talk)

She is a low-profile individual outside of her failed bid for the EU parliament. (which is what BLP1E calls for). She has talked to programs as a representative of the advocacy group she's a member of not representing herself. CaptainPrimo (talk) 06:11, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Here's some other "notable" people that Oakshade might want to create articles for because BBC News had 1 article on them.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/7098116.stm Bike sex case sparks legal debate (apparently this sparked legal debate -- sounds like something really important Oakshade)

Failed cable thief who fell from Manchester viaduct jailed http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-manchester-20902527

CaptainPrimo (talk) 06:00, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:08, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:08, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:08, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP. She got more votes than the Scottish Socialist Party, Alliance Party of Northern Ireland or Green Party in Northern Ireland, all of which are cleasrly notable. Therefore she's notable too. -- Cabalamat (talk) 16:51, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Those parties have contested more than one election and have won seats in local government. This person hasn't. And since the Scottish Socialist Party did win seats they got more votes: 245,735 votes in total. CaptainPrimo (talk) 17:44, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

unelected candidate for political office, does not guarantee notability, although such people can still be notable if they meet the primary notability criterion of "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject of the article".

In the case of candidates for political office who do not meet this guideline, the general rule is to redirect to an appropriate page covering the election or political office sought in lieu of deletion.

There's only 1 RS but more than 1 is required.

I would be fine with a redirect if that's what it takes. CaptainPrimo (talk) 17:59, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Also Wikipedia:Otherstuffexists. CaptainPrimo (talk) 18:45, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As this is heading for no consensus, I'm going to withdraw. CaptainPrimo (talk) 06:42, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was withdrawn CaptainPrimo (talk) 06:37, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Tamils Against Genocide[edit]

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

Delete. Non-notable organization known for a single event that has no lasting effects and has not had any depth of coverage. Violates WP:BLP1E. All mentions of organization are trivial or revolve around 1 event. CaptainPrimo (talk) 00:25, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:05, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ugh, since this looks like it's heading no where and likely to be relisted before being closed for no consensus I"m going to WITHDRAW. CaptainPrimo (talk) 06:09, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) —Theopolisme (talk) 23:47, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Twerking[edit]

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

This article seems to be mostly about Twerk Team which appears to be a non-notable organization. The remaining content would seemingly be an example of WP:NEO with very few reliable references to support it as a commonly used term. Mkdw ^talk 10:33, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No prejudice to withdrawing if further support but when first nominated the sources were only youtube videos. Mkdw ^talk 07:09, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - the fact that thousands of teenage girls followed that "non-notable organization" is, in fact, notable. Let me give you an example. The Cinnamon challenge and dog shaming are both similar phenomenons and as you can see they haven't been deleted. --Երևանցի _{ասելիք կա՞} 14:55, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Then a separate article about Team Twerk should be made if they meet WP:ORG but most of their citations are Youtube. And you know that if x exists then y should is not grounds for establishing notability and inclusion. Mkdw ^talk 21:50, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 21:21, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 21:21, 26 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, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Notable dance style, with a current article that would seem to place too much emphasis on a couple YouTubers. The Drover's Wife (talk) 06:29, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Strictly in terms of the definition, the article does not add much beyond the definition in which Wiktionary would be the suitable choice. Mkdw ^talk 05:45, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep consider moving Team Twerk according to which is most notable, make the other a redirect. Rich Farmbrough, 03:19, 6 January 2013 (UTC).[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. MBisanz ^talk 00:10, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Karl Denninger[edit]

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

I propose that this article fails to meet the notability requirements. All of the sources appear to be either from the subjects own blog, or from very un-reputable sources.Djobouti_phat (talk) 23:08, 5 January 2013 (UTC)D[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mkdw ^talk 23:37, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Conservatism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:43, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:43, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:43, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Tea Party movement. Subject does not appear to be individually notable as there is a lack of significant coverage about the individual himself in multiple reliable sources. It appears he maybe notable within the context of an event relating to the Tea Party movement, and thus would fall under WP:BLP1E. Therefore a redirect to that event should be created, and what content is verified to reliable source(s) can be summarized and merged into where the redirect is targeted within the Tea Party movement article.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 19:49, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 04:19, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I replaced various unreliable or self-published sources with reliable ones. More going on here than just the Tea Party thing, which in fact seems to be the least notable and well-sourced part of his biography; he was a mildly-famous Internet entrepreneur back in the 90s and got repeated coverage for that in Chicago newspapers, and between that and his finance blogging (for which, as one source points out, he got "national attention"), he seems to squeak by WP:N quant18 (talk) 08:48, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Meets GNG. He is covered by multiple reliable, independent sources and the sources are not WP:ROUTINE. Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 13:28, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:30, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Baylis and Harding[edit]

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

Non-notable, run of the mill company. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 23:06, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 22:25, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 22:25, 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 01:00, 24 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, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:CORP LK (talk) 04:27, 31 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) Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 04:21, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

33 Snowfish[edit]

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

Non-notable novel, no reason to suggest notability. JayJay^{Talk to me} 03:57, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete - There are sources, but no significant coverage and most sources only provide a basic plot summary. It also fails to meet any of the criteria in WP:BKCRIT. Nimuaq (talk) 11:00, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The trade reviews are dodgy, but there has been no official consensus on whether or not they would be considered trivial coverage. Even without those, the book has still been reviewed or mentioned by several literary journals and was made an ALA pick. It's light, but there's just enough to where I'd say this passes WP:NBOOK.Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 14:43, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm also finding where the book is mentioned in more than a few "these books are the best for your students" books, which suggests that the work is utilized in classrooms and/or school libraries. [32], [33], [34], [35], [36], [37]. It's also listed in multiple articles and journals as being an example of the grittier teen literature. I didn't link to many of these in the article, as I wanted to show more meatier examples and listings in the article for now. [38] Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 14:54, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:22, 25 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, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The book appears to have been reviewed by notable reviewers. ^King Jakob _C 14:24, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the reviews/coverage identified above by Tokyogirl79; subject appears to meet WP:BK. Gong show 19:46, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:30, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Osuma StreetWear (OSW)[edit]

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

Not a notable brand. No reliable or third-party sources on Google, zero news or news archive hits. The brand may be notable in Scandinavia, but I don't see any evidence I'm afraid. Whilst it is not obviously promotional, it seems to fail WP:GNG Mabalu (talk) 17:49, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Finland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:59, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:59, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:59, 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 16:56, 24 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 00:07, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Can't find independent sources. LK (talk) 04:22, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The city.fi review of the year's products in 2007 is not strong enough to demonstrate WP:CORPDEPTH on its own, and I'm not locatng anything further. AllyD (talk) 09:56, 31 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. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:40, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Astro (rapper)[edit]

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

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

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

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

WP:EVENT, only notable for one event which is the X-Factor, he finished 7th place not 2nd or 3rd but 7th. None of his songs have hit the charts, only featured in one song and one other TV show for 1 episode. Redirect to The X Factor (U.S.) or delete. JayJay^{Talk to me} 20:15, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to The X Factor (U.S.) Nom puts it in very good words. Buggie111 (talk) 00:02, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:00, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I think it's pretty clear this performer isn't yet independently notable. If this needs a redirect, it should go here: List_of_The_X_Factor_finalists_(U.S._season_1) Townlake (talk) 04:15, 25 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, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:MUSICBIO LK (talk) 04:19, 31 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) —Theopolisme (talk) 23:48, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Gong Cha[edit]

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

Propaganda and blatant promotion about company, its working conditions, its merchandise, etc. Due to this, plus the lack of referencing for much of the article, it seems an obvious delete, but company might pass notability, hence bringing to discussion. Mabalu (talk) 19:39, 24 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 24. Snotbot t • c » 21:56, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:13, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:13, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:13, 27 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, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Stubify Filled with unsourced material, but the company is probably notable. LK (talk) 04:20, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think it is aimed at promoting the company, although it includes examples of the company, it is just helping to explain the ideas, therefore, the page is fine. However, someone may think that the words used in the page are subjective. If the words can have some changes, the page could be kept. — Preceding unsigned comment added by A001116 (talk • contribs) 08:56, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep Stubified as suggested by LK. After axing the awful section "Characteristics of Gong Cha in Hong Kong", and giving it a copyedit, it's actually not that bad. The section on "cloudy agent" (i.e. plasticisers) was already reasonably well-sourced to major Hong Kong newspapers like Oriental Daily News and Ming Pao, and there was another article in The Sun from before that incident reviewing their drinks selection. quant18 (talk) 14:30, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the now cut-down version. Dengero (talk) 14:26, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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