< 19 November	21 November >

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. Yunshui 雲‍水 08:30, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Emilie Mover[edit]

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

Insufficient evidence of notability, as per the discussion on the article's talk page: three completely un-credited uses of her music on two network TV shows does not qualify for notability, per WP:Band, WP:BLP1E and WP:BIO1E. besieged^talk 23:24, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:41, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The referencing in the article consists of a profile from what might be her music label, and an article in a video gamer online magazine. Searching for additional sources only turn up this. That's not sufficient coverage to meet notability. -- Whpq (talk) 17:44, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as lacking in depth coverage in reliable independent sources. Stuartyeates (talk) 08:29, 27 November 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. Yunshui 雲‍水 08:30, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Bumping (music)[edit]

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

I don't see any sources that would validate an article. Biruitorul ^Talk 23:17, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

SPEEDY DELETE No sources cited whatsoever, not even an external link of any value. Reads like a list of someone's favorite Spanish DJ's, with the hopes that listing them here will create notability. besieged^talk 15:18, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:39, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no evidence this is a widely recognized genre of music. I'm also curious how it is characterized by "high-pitched bass". Kaldari (talk) 21:53, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – this is not a notable genre at all and does not deserve a Wikipedia article. There are no sources to prove that "bumping" is in fact an important genre. —WP:PENGUIN · ^{[ TALK ]} 17:46, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as completely unreferenced. Stuartyeates (talk) 08:29, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedily deleted by User:Dank under criteria G11; "Unambiguous advertising or promotion". I'm closing this discussion despite Dank's recommendation to keep discussing it here - the article met the criteria at G11, and any objections to deletion should therefore be raised at deletion review. (non-admin closure). Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 08:53, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Advertiise[edit]

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

Non-notable website that fails WP:GNG. No significant coverage at all found at Google, no reliable sources at all in fact, just unreliable fan sites (LinkedIn, Facebook, Wikia, etc.). Propose deletion. TBr and ley 23:16, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The website has been launched (www.advertiise.com) and SEO has been pushed to get our ranking into the 1st page on google. Please understand that the company has just been launched and will be running. Thanks. Mark — Preceding unsigned comment added by Advertiise (talk • contribs) 23:35, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Exactly as the nominator says - as a new company, the subject is nowhere close to being notable enough to justify an encyclopedia article. Fails to meet the relevant notability criteria set out at the general notability guideline and the specific guideline for businesses. Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 00:15, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete - the comment above from User:Advertiise is basically an admission that Wikipedia is being used to WP:PROMO a new product and improve Google ranking and that the user in question is (obviously) WP:NOTHERE to build Wikipedia. Concerns about WP:USERNAME, WP:COI and almost every other policy we have. Kill it with fire. Stalwart111 01:24, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Thanks to the article creator for basically closing this AfD as blatant WP:PROMO. Should have been G11'ed actually. §FreeRangeFrog 03:31, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Since the article creator has admitted that the page was created in the interests of search engine optimization, I felt it necessary to speedily delete the page, even though I don't generally like to do that during an AfD discussion. Please continue discussing, and if the consensus drifts for any reason away from speedy deletion, I'll restore the page. I can reproduce the text here since this page doesn't promote Google rankings: "Advertiise.com is Canadian-multinational corporation that provides a global platform for buy and selling advertising space. The company is headquartered in Calgary, Alberta. It is the world's leading supplier of advertising space from both traditional media and non-traditional media opportunities. As of 2012, there is a small management team from across the world and this is poised to grow as the company expands internationally. ... The company was founded in 2012 in Calgary Alberta, Canada, however the business vision was conceived in 2008 in Sydney Australia. The company takes its name from the two ii's - bringing 'buyers' and 'sellers' together, and "two ii's are better than one". In addition to providing advertising space opportunties, the company serves as a service platorm to the advertising industry itself." - Dank (push to talk) 04:27, 21 November 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. Yunshui 雲‍水 08:31, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ex-premie[edit]

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

The term given to an infant of more than 38 weeks of Postconceptual Age (PCA). The Postconceptual age (PCA) is the sum of gestational age at birth and the post natal age in weeks. -

this is uncited a Google search revealed nothing - there are no internal links to anything -or any citations to anything - no need to disambiguate here. Youreallycan 23:03, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - failed attempt at creating a disambig? Precursor to creating Ex-premie (medical) or Ex-premie (infant) or something? Not sure. But it has been around for a long time so I'm also not sure what original authors had in mind. The creation of any such article would require require substantive WP:MEDRS sources which I'm not seeing after a cursory search. Thoughts anyone? Stalwart111 01:30, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There are currently two things on Wikipedia that could be ambiguous with this title: Ex-Premie redirects to preterm birth, but that article does not mention "ex-Premie" (and so the redirect should be deleted or information on "ex-Premie" should be added to the article); and Ex-Premie.org, which redirects to a bibliography of Prem Rawat. This disambiguation page (which I've just cleaned) should be deleted, since it can be dabbed with a hatnote at preterm birth (see WP:TWODABS). -- JHunterJ (talk) 13:48, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Unsupported neologism of no notability. The only thing a google search reveals is websites dedicated to or against a guru who claims he is "The lord of the Universe": looks like a poor excuse to have a reference on the Wikipedia to ex-premie.org, said guru's website, ala blatant promotion. besieged^talk 15:27, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:31, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or redirect to Premature_birth#Prognosis. Stuartyeates (talk) 08:30, 27 November 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. Yunshui 雲‍水 08:31, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

List of Magnum, P.I., Simon & Simon and Murder, She Wrote episodes[edit]

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

No need for separate episode lists per the general consensus. TBr and ley 23:01, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Probably original research; no indication that this crossover is a notable topic, and even if it is notable it shouldn't be treated at this level of detail. Article appears to be an individual fan's attempt to manufacture a chronology, and unless published sources discuss the chronology, it's not notable. Could briefly mention the cross-over in one or more of the shows' articles. --Colapeninsula (talk) 00:05, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:32, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:32, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete. Seasons of episode listings for two crossover episodes? No thanks. This is already mentioned in List of Magnum, P.I. episodes. Clarityfiend (talk) 03:08, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I can't wait for the List of Murphy Brown and Seinfeld episodes article. This is just a repeat of already existing lists. This would be a little more precise if it only showed the crossover episodes but then that would be a very short list. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 08:27, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Colapeninsula, particularly his observation about this being an attempt to manufacture a chronology. postdlf (talk) 03:11, 22 November 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. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Magnum, P.I., Simon & Simon and Murder, She Wrote episodes. Yunshui 雲‍水 08:32, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

List of Cannon and Barnaby Jones episodes[edit]

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

No needed for two separate lists on the episodes per the general consensus. TBr and ley 23:00, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:29, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:29, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. One crossover doesn't need to be obscured by a mashed together listing of otherwise unrelated episodes. Clarityfiend (talk) 03:11, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a passing mention in each of the two individual pages is more than sufficient. Stuartyeates (talk) 08:32, 27 November 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. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Magnum, P.I., Simon & Simon and Murder, She Wrote episodes. Yunshui 雲‍水 08:33, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

List of Ironside and The Bold Ones: The New Doctors episodes[edit]

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

No need for two separate lists of episodes per the general consensus. TBr and ley 22:59, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:26, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:26, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. One crossover doesn't need to be obscured by a mashed together listing of otherwise unrelated episodes. Clarityfiend (talk) 03:11, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The chronology appears to be original research. There was 1 cross-over episode: if the episode is really notable with coverage in multiple sources, then the crossover might merit an article. But not a list like this. --Colapeninsula (talk) 12:25, 21 November 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. Sandstein 16:36, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Marinduque local elections, 2013[edit]

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

This is simply an announcement that there will be an election next year Modern.Jewelry.Historian (talk) 22:10, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:16, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:16, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:16, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:IINFO. Do we really need an article for all congressional races in the Philippines next year? As a suggestion, should you nominate any more articles, it would help to have just a single mass nomination rather than several individual AfDs. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 20:56, 25 November 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) Go Phightins! 23:02, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Abdelaziz bin Ahmed Al Thani[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:GNG Shaz0t (talk) 22:05, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Article says he was Minister for Health, which makes him notable. Nominator was blocked for trolling. Tijfo098 (talk) 08:42, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Middle East-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:13, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:13, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I agree. The prince has held a notable position in a government. I wonder why a banned sock puppet didn't have all the AFDs they started closed automatically. The other one I see the guy did was closed with a speedy keep. Dream Focus 01:36, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep - No need to drag an article through AFD due to trolling from a banned user. -- Whpq (talk) 17:52, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but attention is clearly needed from an Arabic speaker. Nevertheless, this guy was at one time a major player in the Qatari House of Thani. Faustus37 (talk) 02:27, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. on 21 November by Tijfo098 Faustus37 (talk) 03:11, 24 November 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. Yunshui 雲‍水 08:34, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Patrick W. Griffin[edit]

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

The article makes little claim of notability, and the sources provided are two primary sources from institutions with which the subject is involved and a local newspaper that quotes him—my son is regularly quoted in the main newspaper serving a community several times the size of Concord, NH, but that's because he plays football with one of its reporters, not because he is notable. The only other potential source that I can find is this short piece in The Boston Globe. I don't think that that's enough to get through the general notability guideline. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:35, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - lacks significant coverage, which is quite telling, considering the carpetbombing-level of media coverage of political consulting this past election cycle. Disclosure: I am a NN political consultant, too, but on the other side. Bearian (talk) 22:29, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:09, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:09, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:09, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:09, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, borderline biospam, dubious notability (book is self-published!). Hairhorn (talk) 03:15, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, I agree with Hairhorn, the book is self published and it should be deleted. Pigsbiy66 (talk) 11:05, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was DELETE, WP:SNOW. postdlf (talk) 02:47, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

List of sexy Philippine actresses[edit]

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

This was PRODed but there is no reason it should exist until Nov 25. Call it WP:POV or WP:OR or whatever, unfortunately there is no clear CSD criteria for it or I would use that. This list serves no purpose. It should be snow'ed. §FreeRangeFrog 21:11, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

~~Comment~~ Delete. I have to admit I can't see a good reason to delete this or keep this. I have to ask: What policy or guideline is being violated here? It's in compliance with WP:LIST. Since the subject is actresses, it's hard to believe that reliable sources can't be found that refer to them or the roles they played as "sexy", so I'm not sure the original research argument holds here either. ~Amatulić (talk) 21:24, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment If we can't come up with a reason for something to be included in the encyclopedia, then it shouldn't be included. But ignoring that for a moment, can you give me a formal, encyclopedic definition of "sexy" that isn't POV or OR, and isn't a potential BLP concern for all the people included in that list? Or even better, a potential formal title for the list, assuming there was a reason for keeping it in the first place. §FreeRangeFrog 21:34, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Formal encyclopedic definition and relevant related articles are right there at the disambiguation page sexy. I agree with your point; all I'm saying is there are plenty of sources with lists of "top sexiest actresses of 2012" or whatever, that could be used to support some entries on this list. A title change like List of Filipina actresses judged 'sexy' by popular press would be better. Or maybe a category. ~Amatulić (talk) 23:35, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - while some users feel that all hotties are notable, I rather disagree. Bearian (talk) 22:31, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Heh. I didn't know about that essay. Thanks. ~Amatulić (talk) 23:35, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as vague, possibly subjective and not a significant category: "popularly associated" is a very vague claim, "sexy" is vague, and playing a sexy role however defined doesn't really put you in a discrete category that is analysed in depth by multiple writers. Would you allow list of tall Philippine actresses or list of Philippine actresses a majority of schoolboys would like to have intercourse with or list of Philippine actresses who've played nurses? Wikipedia is not a site for movie trivia lists. Topics such as sexuality in Philippines cinema may well be notable, and even competitions/polls for the sexiest actress might be notable with sufficient media coverage, but this article is too far from any encyclopedic topic to rename, merge, or fix. --Colapeninsula (talk) 00:20, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:23, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:23, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per my PROD statement: "No demonstration of notability per the general notability guideline. Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought and this list will be primarily populated by OR." Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 00:27, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Snow delete per nom and above. Obviously. TBr and ley 00:27, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I'm not trying to WP:OTHERSTUFF this but (as Cola suggested above) how is it any different to creating the article List of ugly Philippine actresses? It's POV social-media-type stuff which is entirely appropriate for The Chive or FHM, but not for WP. Stalwart111 01:39, 21 November 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. Sandstein 16:56, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Finance Conception of Control[edit]

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

This massively wordy article is entirely about an academic term that's seen fairly limited use. It appears to present the views of several economic theorists as fact, and is written largely in the style of a college paper. While it's clearly a real concept, I can't see anything that makes it notable, and this article gives it a far too detailed and far too opinionated presentation. — Francophonie&Androphilie (Je vous invite à me parler) 19:32, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Management-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:01, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I think somebody uploaded their college term paper. (User:Sociology25HU, could that be a clue?) "Fairly limited use" of the term is charitable; pretty much all the usage I found, and the majority of the references in the article, are from the term's originator Neil Fligstein. The term does not seem to have passed into usage beyond its originator. --MelanieN (talk) 03:43, 27 November 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. Whilst it's clear a fair number of people would like to see this article kept, I can see no arguments for that course of action that don't boil down to WP:ITEXISTS and WP:ITSUSEFUL. If the tour takes place as planned and sufficient independent coverage is generated, the page can be recreated. Yunshui 雲‍水 08:38, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Diamonds World Tour[edit]

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

Fails WP:CRYSTAL. Nothing but a list of tour dates, which do not assert any sort of notability. All sources used are show date announcements or ticket purchase links. This is an encyclopedia, which means that in general, we should be writing about things that have already happened and have been covered by the appropriate sources. MSJapan (talk) 19:21, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep. Sorry? The tour is actually happening in March, how is that a WP:CRYSTAL? Dates are announced from her website and is of support of Unapologetic which is out atm. — Tomíca^(T2ME) 19:26, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per above. AARON• ^TALK 19:40, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep this tour is highly relevant and is by a highly relevant artist. It has received significant media coverage already, and the album in which it is in support of is now on sale. Jagoperson (talk) 23:18, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Relevance is not even a consideration here, because relevance is subjective; I'm sure Barry Manilow could care less about Rihanna's tour, for example. What is at issue is sourcing. The event has not happened, and CRYSTAL states "no dates are definite until the event has happened." There is no coverage about it per RS; RS means "not from Rihanna's website," and "not advertising materials." The tour also has to be notable on its own, as notability is not inherited from its album. So could someone please explain to me how something that hasn't happened yet meets WP criteria for notability? MSJapan (talk) 04:17, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep per reasons stated above. Elste007 (talk) 08.13, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
Keep ~ the associated album has been released and the tour dates have been confirmed by Rihanna. It is not a violation of WP:CRYSTAL because it is of substantial notability and scheduled to occur. Ar re 12:39, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:59, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:59, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello the tour is true not delete please --JonathanD. (talk) 23:12, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please see WP:Existence ≠ Notability. Stalwart111 09:54, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the reasons stated by Tomica. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 03:36, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well, this is a rather ironic turn of events considering a few hours ago I performed an NAC on this as a speedy keep, but upon further review (and request from an admin and the nom) I rescinded said closure and it now even seems to me that this is a violation of WP:CRYSTAL. Therefore, provided there are no objections from others as to a COI considering I previously closed it and then was notified on my talk page with reasons to rescind said closure, I would !vote delete. Go Phightins! 03:41, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per crystal and wp:not. Longer comment to follow when I am on an actual computer. gwickwire | Leave a message 03:48, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Further comments... Well, every delete below seems to cover them totally. So.. I'll leave it to them. So, my vote is now a Delete per below. Thanks all below for not making me rehash what I had planned to say! gwickwire | Leave a message 05:19, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep every MAJOR concert tour by a MAJOR act has an article, whether it has started or not. How about Red Tour, One Direction 2013 World Tour etc...? Thankyoubaby (talk) 03:51, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please see WP:OTHERSTUFF. Stalwart111 09:54, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - As an additional policy citation I should have used but was unaware of at the time, see ~~WP:NTOUR~~ WP:NCONCERT, which indicates that tours must be notable on their own, reliable independent sources are still necessary in terms of their coverage, and those reliable independent sources must do more than establish existence). Financial success, artistic approach, etc., are legitimate guidelines for notability, but none of that can be established before the tour happens. Not all tours by a notable artist are notable. MSJapan (talk) 04:35, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - MSJ, I think you mean WP:NCONCERT, which this does not pass, in my opinion. I also have serious concerns about the sources provided which include fan-sites and blogs. If you want to argue this should not be subject to WP:CRYSTAL because the predictions are notable enough (predictions / plans / concepts can be notable) then we need far better sources than that as far as I'm concerned. The WP:ILIKEIT votes from fans citing each other rather than policies are not particularly convincing in my opinion. Stalwart111 09:54, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I'll fix that. Thanks! MSJapan (talk) 16:38, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep per all the big reasons stated above. VítoR™ • (D) 11:57, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Um, which ones? Stalwart111 00:23, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep for all the reasons stated above. quite obviously, this tour is actually happening, and this article will prove USEFUL for people who want to glean more information on the tour (especially the worldwide tour dates) using wikipedia. why nominate this article for deletion? this is a joke, and a waste of time. nominations like this deter people from being involved in wikipedia at all. shame on the user who nominated this article for deletion in the first place.--mikomango mwa! 19:52, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Why nominate this? Because Wikipedia isn't the place to promote an upcoming tour, regardless of whether it's useful to fans or not. It's an encyclopaedia. There are no reviews of the tour, no records (because it hasn't happened yet), no media coverage of what the artist did during the tour (because it hasn't happened yet). We have announcements, plans and promises, all of which fall squarely into the realm of WP:CRYSTAL. This is obviously a case of WP:TOOSOON because it will happen and it will receive coverage in it's own right. But until then, we are speculating about what will happen and when. Until then, this information is the sort of thing that should be on the artist's website. Shame on the nominator? Shame on the person who completely ignored WP:BURDEN and created this article in the first place. How silly. Stalwart111 00:23, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep because the article is not being thought of through a crystal ball. The article has well-written and cited information, so I don't see why it is up for speedy deletion! All we have to do is add an expansion template to the article and get everyone to help out the article by providing more sources and information! If the article was being thought out of by researching information, posting it on the article, and not adding sources, then it would be would've been listed as a crystal article or even being plagiarized! This article should be kept for sure! The Smell of Magic 23:46, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Vacation9 (talk · contribs) performed an early non-admin closure without sufficient consensus. I undid the changes and re-opened the AfD so that the discussion may continue. §FreeRangeFrog 07:03, 27 November 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. The article has been substantially rewritten since the nomination, such that the nomination's concerns no longer seem to apply. Sandstein 16:44, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Epineurial repair[edit]

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

Editor stated in edit summary that this is his thesis. It's a how-to guide of a medical procedure to repair the epineurium. The encyclopedia is not the place for essays or how-to guides. PROD removed. Cindy(talk to me) 19:11, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:53, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The procedure needs to be rephrased, though, so it's a discussion or description rather than a step-by-step how-to guide. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 15:24, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the article's content is a near total loss as it's almost all how-to. What remains, and what should be there, could be a section in epineurium. -- Scray (talk) 12:01, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Has it horrible style issues? Yes. Can they be solved by editing? Yes. Therefore, are they a reason to delete? No. Does it pass WP:GNG? Hell yes, lots of references in academic RS in the article. What do we do? We keep it. --Cyclopia ^talk 14:31, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Don't care if it stays up. Just need it up until December 18th to get credit for a into to neuroscience class. I was trying to write it for a lay person to understand the the viewpoint of the surgeon. If some one uses this as a how-to guide, Darwinism takes over. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jgore3 (talk • contribs) 15:29, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Don't care if it stays up. Just need it up until December 18th to get credit for a into to neuroscience class. - Sorry if it sounds rude, but we do not care if you "need it to get credit". Wikipedia is not a repository for homework. Second, you do not own articles you create. We could (and honestly should) rewrite it from top to bottom. I agree it should stay because the topic is notable, but if you want to help the encyclopedia (and possibly get a good credit: win-win situation), please take care of rewriting it according to our policies. Start from WP:NOT. Thanks! --Cyclopia ^talk 15:55, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Didn't say I own it. The history of the article shows my contributions to it. This counts as peer review because wikipedia has a back log and what constructive feedback seemingly only Anthonyhcole has given helps me write it better. I added a talk page if you have anymore constructive feedback. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Epineurial_repair Jgore3 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.61.148.203 (talk) 21:53, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like you are doing a good job. Sorry if my words seemed harsh. I know you didn't say you own it, but it's better sometimes to make it clear from the start -it's understandable that authors are attached to their articles! I'll see what can I do to help. --Cyclopia ^talk 21:55, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ (changing to Keep, see below) I agree with User:Scary. This is not an encyclopedia article. Put a paragraph (in general and without all the how-to stuff) in the article Epineurium, and delete this without a redirect. Sorry, Jgore3, but Wikipedia is an international encyclopedia, not a place for you to get help with your homework. If there are people here willing to help you with it, you could ask the closing administrator to userfy it to you; that will give you the article on a private page, where you and others can work on it to your heart's content without it cluttering up the encyclopedia. --MelanieN (talk) 03:50, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The article still needs a lot of work (which is being done) but the topic is entirely notable, and that's what counts for deletion. If the topic is suitable and we can improve an article by editing, our deletion policy asks us not to delete. Articles that need some work are not "clutter". --Cyclopia ^talk 12:30, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Changing my opinion to Keep based on the striking improvement since I last looked at it. Based on the initial article I did not think the topic was notable enough for a separate article and could easily have been accommodated within Epineurium. But now that the article has been expanded to include comparison to other procedures, that is no longer true. I still think the how-to section should be deleted or massively trimmed, but that is an editorial issue, not a keep-or-delete issue. Good work! --MelanieN (talk) 17:52, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. I see you are continuing to improve it, Jgore; it keeps getting better and better. I hope you get an A! ;-D (And I never thought I would ever say anything positive about anyone doing their schoolwork on a Wikipedia article!) --MelanieN (talk) 20:01, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, but much work needed. if this was supposed to be written for a layperson to understand, it is terrible in that regard. It is littered with anatomical, surgical and histopathological terms with no explanation. I feel that this page should be shorter, (not a how-to manual etc) and have jargon explained. Alternatively, move summary of content to epineurium as suggested above.lesion (talk) 04:18, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The article is no longer a how-to guide it appears. Is there a current delete rationale? Biosthmors (talk) 19:21, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Don't care if it stays up. Just need it up until December 18th to get credit for a into to neuroscience class. Oh My Gosh. Well, at least this one is honest, and I hope the prof is reading. So, for the information of your professor, it is still quite a horrible article in terms of prose and organization, and there is currently no indication that it uses sources correctly (per WP:MEDRS). If the article had a single PMID, we could determine what is there that could be kept, and delete the rest. As it stands, pending addition of PMIDs and clarification of what secondary reviews are actually being used, I'm on the fence as to whether it should be merged to Epineurium, which is certainly not overloaded at this point. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:04, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Good point about there not being much at epineurium, I added this Biosthmors (talk) 20:11, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is certainly not a "how-to" guide. The article has several good references. Of course it needs clean up. Axl ¤ [Talk] 01:02, 28 November 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. Spinning Spark 07:42, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ares Security Vehicles[edit]

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

(Previously speedied per A7, G11; no longer meets either.) I can't find any discussion of this brand among reliable sources, nor, even, any substantial discussion among non-reliable ones. Fails to meet WP:ORG, and while the tone's no longer sufficiently promotional for G11, it's not encyclopedic either. — Francophonie&Androphilie (Je vous invite à me parler) 16:11, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Arab Emirates-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:40, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:40, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:40, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:40, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom Nick-D (talk) 21:19, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No evidence found that this firm meets the WP:CORPDEPTH criteria. AllyD (talk) 10:18, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:ORG. —Theo polisme 01:27, 28 November 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 00:52, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Undaground[edit]

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

This is an unnecessary disambiguation page. All of the entries are unambiguous partial-title matches. ShelfSkewed Talk 15:01, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. ShelfSkewed Talk 15:04, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Support per nom. --Jprg1966 ^(talk) 15:36, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – a pointless page – a Wikipedia search on "Undaground" gives this information instantly (and up-to-date) — Hebrides (talk) 16:16, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as partial title match, which aren't dabs and aren't valid list articles. See also:
-- JHunterJ (talk) 17:20, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - in their defense, few noobs know how to search using Boolean operators. Bearian (talk) 22:35, 20 November 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. Sandstein 16:35, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sayabito[edit]

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

No evidence of notability. The only sources cited are two pages on what is described as "official website of Sayabito". Searches have produced entries on various listing sites, fansites, etc, but nothing substantial in reliable independent sources. JamesBWatson (talk) 14:10, 20 November 2012 (UTC) JamesBWatson (talk) 14:10, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:32, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:32, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per JamesBWatson. Admittedly, I can't search for sources in Japanese though. Sven Manguard Wha? 20:19, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not seeing sufficient third-party sourcing or in-depth coverage to demonstrate notability or justify a self-standing article. --DAJF (talk) 06:13, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not enough coverage in reliable sources. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 11:54, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete - Blatant fanpage. Series has next to no impact on Japanese popular culture other than in niche subculture. Jun Kayama 01:34, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. There are conflicting policy aurguments on both sides, while a relisting may result in more !votes accumulating on one side or the other, it does not seem likely to result in a consensus forming. Monty ₈₄₅ 19:20, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

List of starships in Stargate[edit]

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

None of the individual ships appear to be notable and Stargate ships as a group do not appear to be notable either. I checked Google, Books, News, and LexisNexis and was unable to turn up anything offering significant coverage. The article is simply a large collection of WP:FANCRUFT. Delete per WP:GNG and also WP:IINFO. Odie5533 (talk) 13:52, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note I am hereby changing my opinion to neutral given that Jclemens has made strong efforts to locate sources and believes the sources he has found and is waiting on will provide sufficient evidence to support notability. I don't feel I should withdraw the AfD this late given that others have still argued for deletion. --Odie5533 (talk) 18:37, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:46, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:46, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:46, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:46, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

To misquote Gordon Gekko, deletion is Goa'uld, per nom. Totally in-universe fan trivia. Clarityfiend (talk) 03:20, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep a list of starships from three TV shows spanning 17 different seasons. Large fictional franchises like this typically have a list of starships, because the ships are themselves characters in the series. Compare List of Starfleet starships ordered by class or List of Star Wars spacecraft, for instance. All material is verifiable by primary sources, and RS'ed commentary can probably be added for most of the entries which don't already have it. Excessive detail can be trimmed as desired, so WP:ATD expects that those fixes be applied first before deletion is a reasonable option. Jclemens (talk) 06:27, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Star Wars and Star Trek have extensive technical manuals and other publications giving details about craft. Stargate does not. This means information on Stargate spacecraft is largely fan supposition and incidental details gleaned from episodes of the show. --Colapeninsula (talk) 12:33, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've just ordered a copy of this book, "Watching Stargate SG-1", which appears to be an independent reliable source and contains mentions of multiple ships listed in this page. I'll be adding lists of probable RS'es covering these ships as I find 'em. The fanbase is not ST or SW sized, but there is almost certainly plenty of RS coverage for these ships. Jclemens (talk) 05:00, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

this covers the Prometheus in the context of other sci-fi ships.
this one does too. Jclemens (talk) 05:09, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
this also covers Prometheus. I've focused my search on that ship because it was the first one permanently featured on the show, which gives it the most time to have shown up in secondary sources. Lots of news articles from 2009 mention Destiny, the setting for Stargate Universe, as well, but those are trivial to find. Jclemens (talk) 05:22, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I did spend some time with the article (check the edit history) and was thinking up ways of improving it when I figured the best improvement would be to get rid of it. I disagree with you when you say, "WP:ATD expects that those fixes be applied first before deletion is a reasonable option". This does not seem right to me. One should consider trimming as an option, but I would not expect one to trim an article before nominating it for deletion. As I was editing, I realized that everything that was written was still based on primary sources and there was no evidence any of the ships or the ships as a group were notable. If the page is kept, I can't imagine how it won't just be a giant ball of fancruft even if someone goes over and edits it. I can see the argument that they are characters, but at the same time I feel they should be notable if we are to have a standalone article for them (WP:AVOIDSPLIT). I don't think we should split articles when the amount of fancruft in one becomes so excessive that we need an entire new article to contain it all. I tried comparing this case to List of Meerkat Manor meerkats. That article cites multiple references with significant coverage, including two articles from the New York Times that deal exclusively with specific characters on the show. --Odie5533 (talk) 14:44, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:AVOIDSPLIT puts individual fictional elements in a notable universe into nice, big list articles like this one. It's how we deal with the topic in an encyclopedic manner without either a bazillion tiny non-notable articles or having a huge gap in coverage. Your interpretation of WP:ATD is unsupported as well: Yes, if something can be improved by trimming it such that it would remedy a defect, then that should be done before a deletion nomination. Jclemens (talk) 01:56, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Trimming this article will not solve the problem of notability. --Odie5533 (talk) 03:59, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Notability isn't a problem. A few minutes finds plenty of sources, and the whole point of lists-of-not-individually-notable elements is that while the individual elements might not be worthy of individual articles, the class as a whole is. Jclemens (talk) 05:11, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete because WP:NOT#PLOT. Articles need sufficient context, not just a recap of various plot elements, no matter how novel or interesting it might be to extract those plot elements (in this case, ships). That context can only come from reliable sources that can WP:verify notability. And even if we could, it's not to say we would need a list of every ship above and beyond a short description of the ships as a whole. Shooterwalker (talk) 20:53, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Lists of fictional elements don't have context. Compare lists of fictional characters, which are plentiful, and typically rely on primary sources to establish verifiability. Spaceships are fictional elements that don't pretend to be people (well, except maybe Moya (Farscape) and Andromeda Ascendant and one or two others...), but are otherwise essentially characters. WP:NOT#PLOT does not apply to lists of characters. Jclemens (talk) 01:56, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This article is entirely made up of in-universe plot summary with no assertion of real-world notability. The sources presented so far do not establish more than passing mentions of individual elements of the list, which in my opinion isn't enough to evidence notability of the collection as a whole. If this list is kept it would need a drastic rewrite, first a chainsawing and then a slow build-up with real-world reception of the elements. Them From Space 05:26, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Can you point to a few other lists of fictional elements that meet your criteria? I'm genuinely curious, because I don't know that what you're describing actually exists. Jclemens (talk) 07:06, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Jclemens (talk) 07:12, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Jclemens. He intends to provide sources, and this seems a reasonable list to exist. The equivalence of spaceships with characters is novel to me, but has appeal in this context. I'm not an xFD regular, so if there isn't enough policy alphabet soup in my comment, I apologise. disclaimer: I'm a bit of a Stargate fan, so subtract a bit of WP:ILIKEIT from my opinion, if so inclined.Begoon ^talk 21:18, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep substantially per Jclemens. The improvements to the article that he proposes should address the notability concern. If he is unable to effectuate them within a few months, then I suppose the article could be relisted. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:43, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep No worse than most articles on fictional ships here, and better than most. All articles are works in progress, they don't need to be perfect, just have the potential to be made better.--KTo288 (talk) 17:19, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. --Odie5533 (talk) 17:35, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've ordered 6 different books on the topic, at a cost of ~$50US or so. Give me a week until they're here, and you'll have adequate reliable secondary sourcing on the topic. If you want to help in the interim by trimming out the overly trivial or speculative bits, be my guest. Jclemens (talk) 21:02, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Why would you need 6 books on the same topic? There is a thin line between dedication and obsession, and you just crossed it. ;) Dream Focus 00:46, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Because when one editor starts an AfD on one element in a fictional franchise, the best way to make sure the encyclopedia isn't damaged is to have the resources at-hand to shore up any other articles that haven't been sourced to keep pace with our evolving expectations. I agree that six books for one article is a bit much, but at least two of them speak well beyond just the Stargate universe. Jclemens (talk) 05:59, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Sources have been found. Don't be a hater. Dream Focus 00:46, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Notability issues aside, as it stands, the article is in-universe fancruft, incompatible with WP:WAF and WP:IINFO's rule that our articles are not "summary-only descriptions of works". All articles must maintain a focus on the real world, not on the fictional world of the works described. What (if anything) independent reliable sources have said about these ships can, I assume, be adequately summarized in the article about the series. Sandstein 16:34, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep More or less per Jclemens, Newyorkbrad. Given the information at hand, notability seems likely, I'm more than willing to assume Jclemens can craft a viable policy-compliant article here, and am more than happy to revisit this in the future if I'm wrong, or if what can be written here appropriately turns to be so minor that a merge (more or less, as Sandstein suggests we do now) ends up proving appropriate. --j⚛e decker ^talk 17:03, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Redirect - Fails WP:GNG. None of the references, including the ones discussed in the AfD, show any notability for "List of starships in Stargate" specifically. A few give a brief mention of Prometheus (although those for the most part appear to be talking about the episode, not the ship), but in passing as part of a single sentence, not in enough detail to make an entirely separate article. Other sources discussed are about Stargate itself, and mention the ships in passing as part of the Stargate franchise if at all, the sources do not describe the ships as something notable enough to exist outside of that context. Reliable sources do not see this subject as notable outside of the context of the primary subject, and only briefly mentioning them inside that context. I don't think it's appropriate for Wikipedia to give so much detail to a topic that reliable sources do not, and not in a separate article that has no notability. If the content is kept, it needs to be trimmed down considerably and merged into Stargate or an appropriate article, but the sources in the article and the sources discussed in the AfD do not warrant a separate article on the topic. - Sudo Ghost 17:51, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. In addition to the work done and anticipated by Jclemens, I've added a citation from a source specifically discussing ships in the Stargate setting as such, demonstrating notability for this topic not just as an element of a noted fictional setting but as a specifically discussed area of interest. At this point I'm going to say this topic is clearly notable. —chaos5023 (talk) 18:39, 28 November 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. As said by the Keep !voters, there are sources and will probably receive more soon. (non-admin closure) Vacation^nine 03:10, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Scene Onnu Nammude Veedu[edit]

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

Notability as per WP:NOTE. If not deleted, needs cleanup and expansion anyway. Rarkenin (talk) 13:17, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:07, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:07, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - As a result of the two news articles provided by Michael below, the film will probably receive more attention soon. Delete for now - Barely comprehensible, insufficient information and the film is probably in-production and nowhere near release (probably sometime 2013). Unfortunately, it seems there are any reliable sources (at least English, anyway) to support this article but this could be due to the language barrier. However, I found one blog here while continuing my search but it wouldn't be sufficient or be reliable to Wikipedia standards. I found several trailers confirming this film is planned but not confirming its notability yet. SwisterTwister talk 21:36, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and fix issues with regular editing. Comprehenaible enough to allow searches for sources which would lead to improvements and, as article itself states it was released on November 23 2012 and we have growing coverage in such as The Hindu we can keep this and let it be fixed as more becomes available. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 23:38, 25 November 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 Transwiki. MBisanz ^talk 04:19, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Act 1696[edit]

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

Fails WP:NOTMIRROR. Maybe move to Wikisource, but it does not belong on Wikipedia. —teb728 t c 08:48, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Transwiki. Bearian (talk) 22:37, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:02, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:02, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:02, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:02, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Transwiki to Wikisource. Note however, that a GFDL-licensed stub on this Act (also known as the Sedition Act of 1907, which is referred to in a few articles here) can be found at wikipilipinas.org, should anyone wish to turn this into an actual article. TJRC (talk) 22:18, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki. This is a law, and Philippine laws are in the public domain, but Wikipedia is not the place to store the full text. This should go to Wikisource instead. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 12:04, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki to Wikisource.--Lenticel ^(talk) 02:08, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki to Wikisource definitely seems the best option. Lord Roem (talk) 00:32, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki to Wikisource. No-brainer, will just need simple formatting. Not an article unto itself. GenQuest ^{"Talk to Me"} 20:31, 29 November 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. j⚛e decker ^talk 16:43, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Omar Hernández García[edit]

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

Does not pass WP:NOTABILITY AL (talk) 22:09, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 08:47, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 08:48, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - he has not received significant coverage or played in a fully pro league. Therefore, this article fails both WP:GNG and WP:NSPORT. Sir Sputnik (talk) 14:34, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. --Edgars2007 ^{(talk/contribs)} 17:37, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:57, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - article is about a footballer who hasn't played in a fully pro league or represented his country in at senior level, which means that the article fails WP:NFOOTY. Also fails WP:GNG due to lack of coverage in reliable sources. Mentoz86 (talk) 17:48, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedily deleted by Jimfbleak as G11 and A7. This is going to be an Ignore all rules closure since I participated in the discussion, but I'll go ahead and close it since it appears that no one else has done so. Feel free to re-open and re-close this AfD if there are any objections. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 21:05, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Veyromax[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:GNG or WP:ORG. Dwaipayan (talk) 08:28, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Subject fails WP:CORPDEPTH, creator is very probably an SPA and article is purely promotional. No coverage from secondary sources, nothing. §FreeRangeFrog 21:56, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:55, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:55, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:55, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:55, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Page about a product that doesn't actually assert notability. No evidence to suggest that the product has particular widespread use, fame or notoriety. JFW | T@lk 21:38, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Can't this just be speedy deleted for being non-notable and as being promotional? I'll tag it right now. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 11:15, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not strictly speediable under A7 as it's a product not the company, and not promo enough for me, but I'm not detagging it. Non-notable herbal 'Viagra' substitute. Peridon (talk) 13:02, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Merge to List of Pokémon (102–151). There is consensus that the subject of the current article can't stand alone and is better merged with the broader list. Several editors voting for deletion are also making arguments that support the idea of a merge. (non-admin closure) --Lord Roem (talk) 06:03, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hitmonlee and Hitmonchan[edit]

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

Delete due to lack of encyclopaedic notability. What makes Hitmonlee and Hitmonchan so special compared with the multitude of minor videogame characters that have received the occasional review on IGN and Games Radar? Cavisson (talk) 07:30, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I don't see how Pokémon characters could be notable enough to have their own articles, apart from Pikachu and a few others. ~ihaveamac [talk|contribs] 08:01, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I would say that quite a few more than Pikachu and a handful of others have notability where it counts. Quite a few that do have articles do not have that as well, though. - New Age Retro Hippie (talk) (contributions) 08:55, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - I did mention that a few others other than Pikachu are also notable, or meet the requirements to at least stay as separate articles, but I don't understand how Hitmonlee and Hitmonchan are notable enough to have their own article. ~ihaveamac [talk|contribs] 09:16, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - Considering that I hold the same opinion, duly noted. :v I'm just saying that it's more than just a few, is all. - New Age Retro Hippie (talk) (contributions) 09:54, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      - @ihaveamac - That is kind of the wrong attitude to have. Any Pokemon can have an article if it had the coverage. Although you say a few others meet it, it is still a bad argument. In fact, you don't even have an argument. All you have is an opinionated !vote.(Sorry for the attitude, I just get annoyed when these types of comments are made) _Blake ^{(Talk·Edits)} 04:33, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. Not a substantial amount of important content to sustain its own article. - New Age Retro Hippie (talk) (contributions) 08:55, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to ~~List of Pokemon~~List of Pokémon (102–151). Filled with fancruft with no sources offering significant coverage. In 1999 a 13-year-old boy was stabbed in the leg over a Hitmonlee card: "He asked me to look at these new cards and one of them dropped on the ground," John said. "He didn't see it and thought I took it. He pulled out a knife that was in his pocket ... and he stabbed me."

--Odie5533 (talk) 04:27, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

whut? _Blake ^{(Talk·Edits)} 04:33, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It was the only thing I found on LexisNexis that really related to Hitmonlee. --Odie5533 (talk) 05:20, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to List of Pokémon (102–151). Definitely not one of our strongest articles. This was before Hippie and I realized that it isn't the quantity of the coverage that matters, but the quality of it. _Blake ^{(Talk·Edits)} 04:33, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 13:51, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:51, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete due to a lack of significant coverage in independent reliable sources that could WP:verify notability. I believe there might be a long-standing compromise in the area of pokemon to merge these types of articles into a broader list, which I'd be okay with instead of deletion. If someone wants to revisit that compromise, better off talking about those lists, instead of trying to delete individual segments. Shooterwalker (talk) 20:54, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of Pokémon (102–151). The content is not important enough to be its own article. Almost all the references are primary sources. --Jucchan 21:30, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete as copyvio. Although José Rizal is highly notable, this travel diary was unencyclopedic trivia. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 11:26, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Jose Rizal Travel from Phillippines to Spain[edit]

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

Unsourced article except that there is a link targeted to a map. Fails WP:GNG. Mediran ^{talk to me!} 07:07, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Mjs1991 has tagged the page for speedy deletion under G1 (patent nonsense). ~ihaveamac [talk|contribs] 07:18, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- G1 only applies if it is gibberish in context structure and you cannot almost understand it (e.g. "vjkan jsanvdnaskjvnjv vsv"). Mediran ^{talk to me!} 07:22, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - that would be G3: pure vandalism I believe, as pages with "gh48er9uidjbireg89d9oig43er8dhio" have been deleted under that. in either case... (see delete below)
    - G3 is about vandalism and is different from G1. G3 includes hoaxes, factual errors, etc. Mediran ^{talk to me!} 07:29, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      - I'm not sure myself exactly what criteria it would be under, but I'm stating what I remember from one article. ~ihaveamac [talk|contribs] 07:32, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - this "travel" doesn't appear notable, not referenced (could be notable, but I can't check) ~ihaveamac [talk|contribs] 07:25, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - the article doesn't seem right. I tried to find the right deletion tag. I would've done a G3, but G1 came across better. Maybe if the article was written a bit better. Larger paragraphs for the dates maybe??--Mjs1991 (talk) 07:34, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It is a copy of http://www.scribd.com/doc/46168141/Rizal-s-Travels. If it is free, it fails WP:NOTMIRROR. If not, it is a copyvio. In either case it is a raw itinerary of no encyclopedic value. —teb728 t c 08:38, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per the G12 criterion. Blatant copyright violation of http://www.joserizal.ph/tr01.html, which is definitively copyrighted. Tagging with ((db-G12)) and requesting early AfD closure. — Francophonie&Androphilie (Je vous invite à me parler) 10:58, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. WP:NYF j⚛e decker ^talk 16:46, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Boogeyman (2013)[edit]

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

I discovered this article after investigating the edits of a user currently involved in the AfD for The Wedding (2013). I then discovered this film's entry. At first glance the article has tons of links, but it very very quickly becomes apparent that none of them show notability at all. The sources are 3 IMDb pages for various actors, a page begging for funding, various pages that are all variations of primary sources, and various links to Wikipedia entries. None of these sources show notability in the slightest. It doesn't really matter that the film supposedly has associations with notable persons (Stephen King, an actor from ASoIaF, etc) because notability is not inherited by having notable persons involved in your film at any stage. I did a search for this film and was ultimately unable to find any coverage that was both independent and reliable. Actually, other than primary sources or things created by the people involved with this, there is little to no proof that this film is even really taking place. Even the main actor's website and IMDb entries do not show any evidence of him actually taking part in this film, although as I said above- even if he is, that still doesn't make it notable. Since there's no speedy for this and I'm not 100% convinced it's a hoax (could be real), I'm bringing this to AfD. Tokyogirl79 (talk) 05:38, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Tokyogirl79 (talk) 05:42, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete probable hoax. The linked IMDB pages don't confirm its existence, and it would be odd for it to exist since the same short story was adapted into a movie just a couple years ago. IF it does exist it's so early in production that it's neither notable or sourcable anyway. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:39, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes and no. King is pretty notorious for allowing people to create "dollar babies" of some of his works. There have been such adaptations of his works before that never got any attention other than an off-hand remarks by King that so and so (usually college students) did a quick and cheap adaptation of one of his stories. However for them to claim to be doing it with an actor that is even slightly well known without any sort of independent coverage does give off the impression of a hoax, I must admit.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 15:39, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete This really does appear to be a hoax. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 20:57, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You may contact me directly for confirmation on Miltos Yerolemou's involvement in this project. The film is not a hoax and begins filming 26/11/2012. In terms of "begging for money" - Indie Go Go is a fundraising platform used by industry professionals. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lwsriamu (talk • contribs) 19:29, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Despite the various people who might have used the site, fundraising is essentially begging for money. While it's not like the site is begging along the lines of Dustin Diamond's pathetic fundraiser to save his house, it's still begging for donations. Even though the Indie Go Go is infinitely more classy than Diamond's attempt, it would never be usable as a source to show notability. On top of that, I want to repeat that even if the film is not a hoax and Yerolemou is in fact participating in the film, the film's existence and the participation of any notable actors do not make the film automatically notable. Coverage in reliable sources does. Even if Angelina Jolie were to star in the movie, that participation wouldn't make the film notable. It'd just make it more likely that the movie would gain coverage.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 05:48, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There is a website for the company, but it's not yet finished. Anyway, until they've got something that's verifiably notable, it's too soon. We need more than press release stuff from the company, and a release date of next year. I can find very little sign of their first film, and the other in the pipeline work has a release date of 2015 and is at the 'self-shot teaser' stage. While I wish them luck, we can't help them along the road to success and notability. Even the 'star' isn't such a big one - the Game of Thrones thing seems to be his possible breakthrough away from roles like 'Man in Therapy' and 'Spanish policeman 2'. Peridon (talk) 20:48, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as being far TOO SOON. Even if not a hoax, this topic lacks enough coverage in reliable sources to make it an exception to WP:NFF. NOTE: There is a 2013 short film by this name that is in post-production and whose existance will cause numerous false positives.

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) Vacation^nine 03:12, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Vasavi Colony[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG, WP:GEOLAND or WP:GEOFEAT. Dwaipayan (talk) 05:33, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep Google search shows multiple entries on it (though mostly useless). Dwaipayanc, you know it is a long time problem for use to collect references for small areas, zones of cities of India. Similarly when you search with the query Madhyamgram], you get almost no good result. And there might be some information in Telugu language world wide web! --Tito Dutta (talk) 13:13, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:49, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Passes WP:GEOLAND as a "populated, legally-recognized place". See government gazetteer mention: Andhra Pradesh district gazetteers, Volume 21] The Interior (Talk) 03:57, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. No arguments advanced in support of notability j⚛e decker ^talk 16:47, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

All-time Rio Grande Valley Bravos FC roster[edit]

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

List of players who have played for an amateur team and thus have no automatic claim of notability. Previously subject of an AfD in 2011 (no consensus) Cloudz 679 05:26, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Cloudz 679 05:30, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Cloudz 679 05:30, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – fails WP:LISTPEOPLE. The absolute majority of included players will remain red links, as they're amateurs. – Kosm1 fent 05:34, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I am the creator of the page and I concur. The information has been archived in my userspace for statistical usage, and the main page should now be deleted. JonBroxton (talk) 06:50, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, a list of non notable people who share the same non notable characteristic. Fram (talk) 07:57, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - even the creator believe it's non-notable! Giant Snowman 08:49, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:52, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no need for a list of red links, when the red linked named should've been removed per WP:LISTPEOPLE. Mentoz86 (talk) 18:18, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. No evidence of notability under WP:BASIC j⚛e decker ^talk 16:48, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Jayanta Kishore Paul[edit]

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

Article is an autobiography of a chef. At first glance, the article looks well put together and well sourced, in spite of being authored by the subject of the article himself. On that basis I declined a WP:CSD#G11 nomination to speedy delete it. However, upon further examination, one finds that:

The references consist of (in order):
- A blogspot posting
- a restaurant review with a brief "press release" bio of the chef in small type at the bottom
- a directory listing
- Another blog
- Another blog, or self-published restaurant reviewer, reviewing the restaurant and giving the chef brief mention
- A local restaruant review giving trivial mention to the chef, as is normal in any restaurant review
- The restaurant's own web site
The restaurant this chef works might actually be notable, but notability is not inherited.

The article represents a decent and commendable try at someone trying to use Wikipedia to promote himself while complying with policies and guidelines, but it seems to fall short of Wikipedia:Notability (people). ~Amatulić (talk) 05:10, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Autobiographical content with no RS. --Tito Dutta (talk) 13:16, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Nothing about this person is notable; the fact that he's worked in one restaurant or another does not mean he meets WP:CREATIVE or even basic GNG. I could find nothing that could establish notability either. §FreeRangeFrog 22:12, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:46, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:46, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy delete under WP:CSD#A7 by Anthony Bradbury (talk · contribs). Non-admin AfD closure. §FreeRangeFrog 01:26, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Zhang Lizeng[edit]

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

Difficulty finding in depth coverage for this individual, fails GNG Nounique names 05:10, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Aside from the creating editor not actually adding refs to any article they create, Zhang is an Olympian. Per WP:NOLYMPICS, they are notable. Bgwhite (talk) 05:16, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As Bgwhite points out, a single appearance in an internationally-sanctioned event (in this case, the Olympic Council of Asia) is enough to meet the notability guidelines for athletes, just like a single appearance in a FIFA-sanctioned match with a pro football team is enough to warrant inclusion under WP:NFOOTBALL. §FreeRangeFrog 22:16, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:43, 21 November 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. per WP:DICTIONARY j⚛e decker ^talk 16:49, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Seial[edit]

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

Wikipedia is not a dictionary Mediran ^{talk to me!} 04:57, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. STATic message me! 06:06, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:DICTIONARY, as the nominator says. — sparklism ^hey! 07:57, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:38, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This is not a word that I nor Merriam-Webster's 10th have heard, but even if it were there is no suggestion that the article could be expanded beyond a dictionary definition. Cnilep (talk) 01:24, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. No arguments advanced for notability under GNG nor NALBUMS j⚛e decker ^talk 16:49, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your Starry Eyes Will Never Make Us Even[edit]

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

Non-notable album that fails WP:GNG. No actual significant coverage on Google or anywhere. Propose deletion. TBr and ley 04:44, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 20:59, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NALBUMS, regardless of the notability of the artist. §FreeRangeFrog 22:18, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:36, 21 November 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 not deleted. Part of the nomination is premature, and the discussion leans strongly towards some form of merge or rearrangement of article content, without a clear agreement on what exactly to do. However, what is clear is that the proposed solutions don't require administrator power. Please talk amongst yourselves somewhere outside AfD to figure out how to rearrange the article content. Der yck C. 10:28, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Adventures of Captain Underpants[edit]

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

Do individual novels in the Captain Underpants series warrant their own articles. this AFD would seem to suggest they don't, but this AFD would seem to suggest that they do. This is also the Deletion review of Captain Underpants and the Perilous Plot of Professor Poopypants. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 04:21, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Selective merge. The plot summaries are overly detailed, and almost nothing is supported by references. One page covering the whole series is sufficient. There may be the occasional book that is slightly more notable than other books, because inevitably some books will get more attention than others, but personally I don't think any of the sequels, even the one that survived an AfD, are independently notable. --Colapeninsula (talk) 12:00, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:34, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I have notified the Children's Literature WikiProject of this discussion. LadyofShalott 18:26, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Full merge This makes my head hurt. It concerns me we have these mega AfDs and the easy thing is to delete but our job is to preserve content when possible. I suggest merge everything into a single series article to preserve, then there will be time for someone (who is knowledgeable) to work on trimming down repetitions and plot summaries. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 21:34, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I invited the percipients in the other two AFD's to this one. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 01:18, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Close - I was invited to this AfD.[1] You might want to review Wikipedia:Canvassing. In any event, I'm here. The outcome of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Captain Underpants and the Preposterous Plight of the Purple Potty People was keep. That keep outcome was on 29 September 2012. The nominator of this AfD needed to wait at least three months from 29 September 2012 -- 29 December 2012 -- before listing Captain Underpants and the Preposterous Plight of the Purple Potty People at AfD. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 03:43, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I invited everyone who participated in the previous two AFD's to this one regardless of what their opinion was. My intention was not (from WP:CAN) to influence the outcome this AFD towards one side of a debate. Also why should we close the entire AFD because one article in this list was a faculty nomination? Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 04:08, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You did the right thing notifying everyone since it was so recent and AfD is notoriously in need of help. Wasn't Canvassing. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 04:51, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/Redirect to Captain Underpants#Captain Underpants novels. Seriously, are we gonna have a separate article for every single book in this nonsensical series? (Imagine if that Dav Pilkey guy were to go on to write a hundred more sequels!) This series as a whole is notable, but individually, the books are not. Take a look at the The Boxcar Children for an example. The series as a whole is notable, but the books individually do not merit their own article. Same goes for the Hardy Boys, Nancy Drew, Mr. Mystery, etc. This series is unlike Harry Potter, in which the individual books would merit their own page... Simply because the level of notability is not the same. Bonkers The Clown (Nonsensical Babble) 06:53, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Also be wary for all those WP:ILIKEIT votes that might appear later on... Like it did during this afd. [2] Bonkers The Clown (Nonsensical Babble) 06:53, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Additionally, all these articles are just 99% WP:Siilly Captain Underpants Fantasy Land Plots with Some Silly Trivia Written by Silly Underpants Fans, failing WP:NBOOK Bonkers The Clown (Nonsensical Babble) 10:57, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - My comment at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Captain_Underpants_and_the_Preposterous_Plight_of_the_Purple_Potty_People is equally applicable here: "No question we all agree the series is notable. W hether to have articles on the separate books can be based either on individual notability (which may be debateable from book to book depending on what sources we happen to find), or whether its the best way to organize coverage of the subject. Every time I see one of these books, though, I'll admit I can't believe the titles the author gets away with. Toilet humor is very popular in its target age group, but not so much among book reviewers and wikipedia editors." In fact, to follow-up, just last night I completed reading Super Diaper Baby 2: The Invasion of the Potty Snatchers (part of a Captain Underpants spin-off series) to my son and found it horribly ridiculous, and all very much to his delight. Currently that book has no separate article, but most of the necessary content is jammed into The Adventures of Super Diaper Baby, which doesn't really make much sense to me, considering that we have Template:Captain Underpants to allow easy navigation among all the books. And indeed, just looking at this recent tome, Super Diaper Baby 2 enjoyed a separate New York Times Review, and even the Scripps service review goes deep enough to note how the book includes a horribly perverted re-imagining (they call it "hugely clever send-up") of How the Grinch Stole Christmas!. Ultimately, I ask wikipedia editors how hard they want to fight the legion of toilet-humor-loving boys in the world? I can write an article on best selling early 20th century novels like Sandy (novel) and it will never get as much attention as these odes to the shitter. I can live with that.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 14:48, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep with selective Merge ... but, they should perhaps be treated much like a set of articles for a TV series currently are: where there is the main article for the series with links to each season. The season articles will often then have links to individual episodes (notability issues in this arrangement, too). That hierarchy may be what works best with this type of article "cluster." It seems to work for the hundreds of media articles, and should work here, too. GenQuest ^{"Talk to Me"} 21:03, 29 November 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. Yunshui 雲‍水 13:14, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Bryan Versteeg[edit]

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

I can find no evidence for notability -- nothing relevant in google news, and, based on the information in the article, no reason to expect there would be. I think the article was added to Wikipedia as part of an attempt to write articles about everyone involved with Mars One. His role was to produce the drawings and animation of the project. DGG ( talk ) 03:33, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Article originator here. You are almost right as to motivation; "an attempt to write articles about everyone interesting involved with Mars One" might be more accurate. Unfortunately, the strict definition of "notability" does not always map onto "interesting"... -Arb. (talk) 09:54, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per original author's very own words. Not Notable.--Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 21:02, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG. Involvement in a notable project does not automatically afford notability. §FreeRangeFrog 22:27, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:16, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:16, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy delete as G11. Although I intended to vote, reading the article and scanning the references made me realize this article is written too much like an advertisement and searching for any other references would probably be useless. The author appears to be from the company so this article was probably started for the sole purpose of promoting themselves. (non-admin closure) SwisterTwister talk 04:23, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hinrich foundation[edit]

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

Non-notable subject that fails WP:GNG. No significant coverage at Google or anywhere, the coverage I see isn't even for this subject, it is for the Heinrich Böll Foundation. The only source at all for this is the official website. No coverage at all other than that. Not reasonable for an article. TBr and ley 02:48, 20 November 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 already deleted via CSD A7--Salix (talk): 08:12, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

DayZ Survival Guide[edit]

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

Wikipedia is not means of manuals or guides. Unsourced. unremarkable topic Mediran ^{talk to me!} 02:39, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Wikipedia is not a game instruction manual JRHorse (talk) 02:43, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as soon as possible. Unsourced entry with no such proven significant coverage anyway, including the article. Wikipedia is not a manual, guide, or essay. I think there's also that chance this could be speedy deleted per A7, maybe? TBr and ley 02:49, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- This wouldn't fall under "web content" would it? JRHorse (talk) 02:55, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Technically no. A7 is for articles (on individuals, animals, organizations, and web content) with no indication of notability. The subject's about a PC game, DayZ, which doesn't qualify as web content, and notability's not the problem here, it's WP:NOT. But if there are enough !deletes, it'll likely be WP:SNOW deleted. Either way, the page will be deleted, and the quicker the better.--xanchester (t) 03:09, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Wikipedia is not a web host for game guides.--xanchester (t) 03:07, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. I'd recommend Howard puts his sandbox version into the article ASAP. Yunshui 雲‍水 13:18, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Varsitarian[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

University student publications are rarely notable, and this case is not an exception. The article is promotional and self-serving, and the references are primary. Drmies (talk) 02:29, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Easy keep. This would've been tougher if this was nominated before October but thanks to the recent controversy concerning calling other universities' teachers as "lemons and cowards", possible references multiplied overnight ever since that story broke. It also had a major part in making ROTC optional rather than compulsory for male students nationwide so that's also quite an achievement. –H T D 04:02, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Interesting controversy--though I am not convinced that an article in the Rappler alone establishes its notability. And the matter of the article remains: it reads like a combination of a directory and a puff piece. Maybe cleanup needs to be done first. Drmies (talk) 04:34, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Rappler passes WP:RS. Anyway, here are some more references on the controversy: Philippine Daily Inquirer and GMA News. And on other issues: [3] Although I do strongly agree the article is really bad now. I might even allow this to be deleted so there can be a fresh start, and possibly a DYK for second time after six years. Talk about gaming the system, lol –H T D 04:40, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, game away my friend: if the article is improved as a result (and you convince editors in this discussion) we're all winners. I'm not yet convinced, nor is Andrew, below, apparently. Good luck, Drmies (talk) 15:13, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. I'd want this to be deleted so I can have a fresh start. The Google News search came up with several references, not just on the controversy. Get this deleted quickly so can I build a new one, so I can DYK this, again. It seems that the article has been taken over by people from the school paper per se, so it is far from neutral. –H T D 15:38, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm a clean start is not an option, I'm afraid. If it is deleted, of course, you can have your clean start in the end anyway, but this can't be speedily deleted, no. Drmies (talk) 17:51, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I dunno what's the point though of waiting for the AFD to end so I can create a new one from scratch with better references, aside from a Main Page appearance. As the new article would be completely different from the deleted one it can't just be speedily deleted upon recreation; a new AFD can be done, too, but with the sources found at the Google News search I linked above, I dunno how an AFD can prosper with at least 10 non trivial references...

A good option would be to start working on a copy in your userspace or sandbox, then when you've created a good version of the article, cut and paste into the current entry. There is nothing wrong with editing the article to meet notability guidelines, even if the lion's share of the work is done by yourself in your own userspace. That can sometimes be a valuable way to create something without worrying about other users or AfD deadlines. It'd still have to meet notability, but you'd have more time and elbow room to work. Just be aware that journals and such are subject to WP:ONEEVENT, so this might be a good alternative. In any case, I suggest working on it now and then cutting and pasting into the main article before AfD. That way if the new version doesn't pass notability guidelines, it'd avoid another AfD week.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 17:10, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I could very well replace the entire article now with the article from my sandbox. –H T D 21:45, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I'm not at all convinced that the controversy raises this one above the bar, I'm afraid. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:02, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 21:05, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Notice: Once the AFD is resolved (keep or delete), I'm planning to replace with a new article found at User:Howard the Duck/Sandbox. I don't wanna undergo a second AFD for that one (as this will be the case) so if you guys still see something wrong with the article on sandbox, do it now here. –H T D 02:46, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. How is one of the oldest student newspapers in the country from Asia's oldest university not notable? Lots of small Perez hilton type publications that make their way to WP, why single out academic, more scholarly ones? --RioHondo (talk) 15:24, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:04, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:04, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:04, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per WP:NNEWSPAPER #1: "The periodical has made significant impact in its field or other area, such as higher education". I believe it is "significant" due to what RioHondo said, "one of the oldest student newspapers in the country from Asia's oldest university". The University was established about the same time as Harvard University, whose student run newspaper is The Harvard Crimson. The two papers seem comparable, but sourcing is more difficult due to language and other barriers (WP:SYSTEMIC). -- Green Cardamom (talk) 04:13, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Let's get this over with quickly: most of the English media in the Philippines is in English. The longest running newspapers (such as this one, lol) are in English. I've found as much as 12 references without really trying that hard. The only sourcing issues are references pre-internet as those are hard to find unless you'd go to a library that has a newspaper archive on microfilm.
- Anyway, as per "The periodical has made significant impact in its field or other area, such as higher education", this has been accorded by the Cultural Center of the Philippines an entry to its encyclopedia of the arts, the only periodical to be given an entry. That demostrates significant impact. Same with its role in abolishing mandatory ROTC in the country. –H T D 05:55, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. While most student publications are not notable, this one is. It has made a major impact in the world of Philippine campus journalism. Even the Cultural Center of the Philippines says so. And that's enough for me. Also, note that most Philippine media is in English, so finding sources shouldn't be difficult. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 10:34, 23 November 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. Yunshui 雲‍水 13:19, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

School-related internet memes[edit]

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

Says nothing that is not covered in internet meme. Totally unreferenced. Not even worthy of a redirect. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 01:35, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No sources. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of internet memes. Wikipedia is not for things made up one day.--xanchester (t) 03:16, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
delete Hard to count all the different policies violated here. Mangoe (talk) 03:25, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, indiscriminate list, potential external link farm, no sources. JIP | Talk 06:07, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No references, practically no content. I think it's noteworthy that the creator created a page for "College Freshmen", which was a page for Sheltered College Freshmen, a meme on this page. I tagged it for CSD, and in the creator's argument against deletion s/he said that s/he was doing it for some school project. Jonathanfu (talk) 06:10, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per everyone. Not even worthy of a redirect. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:42, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete per WP:SNOW. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 21:06, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:10, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedily deleted per criterion G11. VQuakr (talk) 08:05, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Those Dirty Words[edit]

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

The band appears to fail the notability criteria at WP:BAND. It does not appear to have been the subject of multiple, non-trivial secondary works published in reliable sources. VQuakr (talk) 01:01, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as too soon - Google News US and UK provided nothing relevant and it's probably too soon, considering they released their first album this year. My own search provided a blog review here which would probably be unreliable and insufficient for Wikipedia, a rock magazine article here and another blog here. These links note they have toured with The Quireboys, Waltari, and Jettblack but there isn't anything primarily or detailed about the alleged touring. Reviews are acceptable but I'm reluctant to believe these two are sufficient. I have nothing against indie bands but a reasonable amount of coverage is required to be considered notable. I'm voting delete with absolutely zero prejudice towards a future article, SwisterTwister talk 04:48, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. MBisanz ^talk 00:53, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Son of a gun[edit]

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

Nothing here but definition, usage examples, and an extended discussion of etymology. All three of these topics (definition, usage, and etymology) are the domain of dictionaries, not encyclopedias. Since Wikipedia is not a dictionary, this article is not appropriate for our encyclopedia. Powers ^T 18:11, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Interesting material, but WP:Wikipedia is not a dictionary. This is just a definition and history of an expression. There is a link to Wiktionary at the bottom of the article. That's where it belongs. Borock (talk) 23:05, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:33, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - WP is not a dictionary. Corn cheese (talk) 05:01, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Wikipedia is not a dictionary, and this isn't a dictionary entry. It's an encyclopedia article about a figure of speech. Angr (talk) 06:13, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- No, it's not. What part of this article would be out of place in a comprehensive dictionary? None of it. Powers ^T 00:34, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Everything that isn't already at wikt:son of a gun doesn't belong in a dictionary entry, unless by "comprehensive dictionary" you mean "encyclopedic dictionary". And if you do, then no part of the article Dog would be out of place in a "comprehensive dictionary" either. But Wiktionary isn't an encyclopedic dictionary, and if you moved this information to the Wiktionary entry, it would be removed again as being encyclopedic and unsuitable for a dictionary. Angr (talk) 20:45, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - Removed again? Why? Why would a dictionary (even a dictionary that isn't an encyclopedic dictionary) remove information on etymology and usage and definition? Powers ^T 01:38, 16 November 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 Huntley 00:50, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It does need clean-up, particularly the "American English" section, but the cited history and the joke attributed to Legrand G. Capers (while not without room for improvement) already bring this beyond dictionary-style etymology. There is also room for expansion regarding use as euphemism, idiom, and interjection. Cnilep (talk) 02:22, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I think you're underestimating what can go into a dictionary entry. There's no limit on etymology imposed by simple virtue of it being a dictionary. And usage is also the domain of a dictionary. Powers ^T 20:13, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - In theory, sure, there is not a limit to what counts as dictionary etymology. In Wiktionary, however, the limits are defined (though this is not yet the case for usage notes). Cnilep (talk) 03:01, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
STRONG Delete Wikipedia is not the urban dictionary. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 21:08, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There is detailed analysis in The Anatomy of Swearing. It's also another name for sonofabitch stew, which appears as son-of-a-gun in numerous sources. And there's other usage of the title such as Son of a Gun (EP) so we should certainly keep this as a blue link. There seems to be plenty more we can do with this and it doesn't seem we can rely upon wiktionary to do it for us. Does anyone actually read wiktionary, anyway? If you google the phrase then our article is the number one hit while wiktionary is nowhere to be seen. Warden (talk) 18:30, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Well hell, then, let's shut Wiktionary down and import every dictionary article over here. Never mind WP:NOTDIC; no one reads Wiktionary, right? Powers ^T 21:56, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Or hey, let's shut Wikipedia down and import every encyclopedia article over to Wiktionary. After all, even articles like Dog are nothing more than extended dicdefs, right? Angr (talk) 17:27, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - Certainly not. Our Dog article is about the creature, not the word. The article would work just as well if it were called "Canis domesticus" or "Domestic canine" or "Animal that goes 'woof-woof'". This article, on the other hand, is about an idiomatic phrase, and it includes nothing but dictionary material (usage, definition, and etymology). There's no underlying concept being addressed, for which an alternative title would work just as well. Powers ^T 20:01, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      - But a dictionary definition of dog, like Wiktionary's "an animal, Canis lupus familiaris, of the genus Canis (probably descended from the common wolf) that has been domesticated for thousands of years, of highly variable appearance due to human breeding", is also about the creature, not the word. Angr (talk) 23:08, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        A single definition may be, but the other definitions of the word are about other concepts... yet they are all contained in the same entry. That makes the entry as a whole about the word, not the concept. Powers ^T 19:16, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - WP:NOTDIC advises on the structure and format of our articles. Its summary is "In Wikipedia, things are grouped into articles based on what they are, not what they are called by. In a dictionary, things are grouped by what they are called by, not what they are.". This is not a reason to delete. Warden (talk) 17:55, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - Frankly, that's a really bad summary of NOTDIC. Fortunately, it's not the summary that's important, it's the rest of the piece, which says things like "Sometimes an article really is a mis-placed stub dictionary entry, that discusses the etymology, translations, usage, inflections, multiple distinct meanings, synonyms, antonyms, homophones, spelling, pronunciation, and so forth of a word or an idiomatic phrase" and "If the article cannot be renamed, merged, or rewritten into a stub encyclopedia article about a subject, denoted by its title, then it should be deleted." Unless you're proposing we somehow write an article about sons of guns and how they've had impact on society as sons of guns, then the clear advice of NOTDIC is that this should be deleted. Powers ^T 19:59, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      - It's an encyclopedia article about a phrase. No policy says words and phrases are unworthy of having encyclopedia articles about them qua words and phrases rather than only about what they denote. Otherwise Thou would have to be a biography of whoever was reading it at the moment. Angr (talk) 23:08, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        Thou and fuck and the like being the exceptions that prove the rule. Those are words with reams of material written about them qua words. Can you honestly say the same about "son of a gun"? And if you can, is there any word or idiomatic phrase about which one cannot? Where is the line drawn? Powers ^T 19:16, 24 November 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 consensus was fairly clear after the merge and is very clear following relisting, so closing early per WP:RELIST.--Salix (talk): 08:25, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Quartus[edit]

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

Unsourced and non-notable person ReformedArsenal (talk) 18:12, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~. Probably the most obscure person in the New Testament, but I could still find a reference, which is why I think that all biblical characters are notable. St Anselm (talk) 21:31, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. St Anselm (talk) 21:46, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or rename Quartus (Bible). Quartus should redirect to the more notable Quartus of Berytus. Merge w/ Quartus of Berytus. Clarityfiend (talk) 22:16, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wow. Surely that's the same person! He's listed with Erastus and Tertius. Likewise, Erastus of Paneas is the same as Erastus of Corinth, and those pages should be merged. This website refers to Romans 16:23 in talking about the saints. St Anselm (talk) 22:33, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In light of the above discovery, I must change my !vote to merge with Quartus of Berytus. St Anselm (talk) 22:59, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have gone ahead and boldly completed the merge. St Anselm (talk) 05:06, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:35, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm fine with this, as long as we can find a good published resource that makes this connection. Simply seeing the same name (and a common name that means "fourth") in a list with another name and assuming that they are the same person stinks of WP:OR ReformedArsenal (talk) 12:19, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

NM, found one. ReformedArsenal (talk) 12:24, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. May be obscure, but is still a saint. Saints acknowledged by major churches are by definition notable. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:15, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Shouldn't we redirect from the general (Quartus) to the more specific (Quartus of Berytus)? Right now, it goes the other way. ReformedArsenal (talk) 12:08, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Depends on how he's more commonly known. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:29, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I just figured that a search term would turn up Quartus more frequently than Quartus of Berytus. ReformedArsenal (talk) 14:20, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously, he is sometimes known simply as "Quartus". St Anselm (talk) 19:40, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- Quarus is the Latin for fourth, and may have been a common name for a fourth son. Whether the person nmaed in Romans and the Bishop of Beriut were the same person, we will never know. Quartus of Berytus is currently a redirect to this article. Whether the article concerns one person or two, we certainly need it. It may be better to reverse the article and redirect, starting with "Quartus of Berytus" and going on to talk about the other one, of whom we apparently know nothing certain but his name. Peterkingiron (talk) 19:30, 18 November 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 00:35, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: This has been relisted by a non-admin. I personally think relisting the debate is a waste of people's time, and I have posted a note to that effect on the editor's talk page. StAnselm (talk) 01:16, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- There are no provisions for who can relist a debate. Admins as well as non-admins have equal right to perform relists. The consensus doesn't seem to be clear, perhaps per WP:RELIST, this is an appropriate relist. Relists are to generate clear consensus and 2 keep, 2 merge and 1 delete (nom) !vote is not at all a clear consensus. Thus, I second this relist. Thank you. TheSpecialUser ^TSU 01:26, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The merge has already been performed (as mentioned above), and the 2 keep !votes refer to the merged article. How is that not a clear consensus? The reason why admins normally relist debates (and I notice you're not an admin, either), is because of the expectation that they will carefully read through the deletion discussion. St Anselm (talk) 01:44, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. I missed that. But, I see that you yourself performed the merge. I believe that you should have at least waited for a consensus to do so. You stated merged content to Quartus per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Quartus just a day after this AfD started and it was way too rushed according to me. TheSpecialUser ^TSU 01:49, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is exactly why I used the word "boldly" above. I merged the articles because they were about the same person. Admittedly, I should have used "per" in the edit summary - it makes it look like it was the result of the AfD discussion. St Anselm (talk) 01:53, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As TSU said, you yourself performed the merge, and as such, it seems that, in keeping with 'giving everyone a voice', leaving this debate open for a few more days definitely can't hurt anything. —Theo polisme 02:02, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It wastes people's time. I suggest that if you are going to relist debates, you refrain from making controversial decisions. St Anselm (talk) 02:53, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

StAnselm, do also note that "a relisted discussion may be closed once consensus is determined without necessarily waiting a further seven days" (Wikipedia:RELIST). Also, you stated "the 2 keep !votes refer to the merged article." - How do you know that? The first comment from Necrothesp doesn't mention the merge? (Am I missing something). I bolded your comment so others do not miss it. -- Cheers, Riley Huntley 07:24, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Necrothesp mentions sainthood (and, indeed, bases notability on it) - that came after the merge, of course - before the merge the article was about Quartus, the biblical character; after the merge it was Quartus, biblical character and saint. St Anselm (talk) 07:32, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Trust me, StAnselm, I hate feeling like even though a consensus should've been reached, since the other contributors to the AfD haven't checked back in, things will stay in limbo longer than they need to. It sucks, and we really need to have a drive to clean up AfD sometime soon. However, it's important to remember the fine line between being bold and gaming the system. Now, I'm not saying that you crossed that line here, but the whole point of WP:BB is that if you do something because it seems like the obvious best option, and another editor does another thing because it seems like the best option, then it's time to sit down and talk. You acted on a rough consensus to perform what appeared to be an obviously correct decision; good for you - no harm done. But the fact that Theopolisme saw fit to relist this debate should tell you that it may have not been a clear enough case to go the extra step, boldness-wise, of closing it just yet. You were bold, he was bold, great: Just remember that there's a difference between expediting a process and skipping past the critical step of reaching consensus. (Also, you might want to check out WP:NOBIGDEAL, if you haven't already, for an explanation of what non-admins can and can't do.) — Francophonie&Androphilie (Je vous invite à me parler) 08:18, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I don't have a problem with non-admins relisting (though it had never occurred to me to do it myself) but it needs to be done carefully - e.g. WP:RELISTINGISEVIL. It certainly appears to be the case that User:Theopolisme saw the two keep !votes and the two merge !votes and jumped to the conclusion that there was no consensus, without reading the discussion through properly to determine to what it was those votes were referring. Anyway, I guess this was my fear concerning wasting time. St Anselm (talk) 08:35, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This person demonstrates enough notablity that is verified by third party sources, in my opinion. The article would be more preferable to me if it acquired some more length - but I don't beleive this is likely. It's more than a stub though, a small article; a solid keep. Outback the koala (talk) 04:47, 20 November 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) Go Phightins! 23:03, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Buskoe[edit]

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

The article does not establish why it is notable, or what lasting effect it had. Furthermore the article has a very definitive point of view and is written more like a story being told than an actual article. Finally I am unable verify any of the references at the end of the article as actually existing or providing any credence to the claims made in the article. Mifter (talk) 02:27, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I posted the article. The facts are true, but Mr. Mifter makes a point about having revealed a "point of view" - i.e. an analysis in addition to "just the facts." I propose trimming it, but maybe someone else should do that. 1. The main "ground truth" here is the article by Mr. Frode Skarsberg, which I have in Norwegian. (an English version is in the Polar Record.) The other sources are auxiliary, except that the NYT articles show the American reaction. 2. Whether this incident had lasting importance is debatable, as it always is with episodes in history. It was a noted one, though, and one most historians probably believe was a piece of the progression in ending US neutrality. For that reason it is important that people have a place to read what actually happened, even if they don't speak Norwegian. 3. Agree that "analysis" related facts should be trimmed. 4. If you want to see something that's off the edge in terms of neutrality and emotion, I suggest y'all read the article on USCGC Northland. Adios! Archivist2 (talk) 02:39, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and rewrite. Although speculation on my part, it's not unlikely that this influenced the later US activity on Greenland (and/or Iceland), and it might also a predecessor to Weather Station Kurt. According to this and this Buskoe appears to be the first ship captured by the US prior to the war starting. As far as I can tell the incident is notable, but needs a rewrite and additional information on any lasting impact. Bjelleklang - talk 08:14, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy for the rewrite The big question hanging over the article is, "did anyone care?" The lede almost states that nobody did. If it can be rewritten to reduce it to an encyclopedic level of detail and if it can be placed in a larger context it which it has some importance, then I can see keeping it. Mangoe (talk) 13:47, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 19:20, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 19:20, 14 November 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 00:34, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

keep article has had more detail added establishing a credible claim for notability.--Salix (talk): 08:32, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- The seizure of this vessel was clearly a significant incident in WWII. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:46, 20 November 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. Small amount of notability that makes it notable enough for an article (non-admin closure) Vacation^nine 03:14, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

La the Darkman[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

No coverage in reliable sources. Has alot of WP:POV issues and entire bio is mostly unsourced. STATic message me! 04:24, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: This one is a little frustrating. I'm finding tons upon tons upon tons of brief, trivial mentions in relation to various different performers, but no in-depth coverage that would show notability. There's a mention in one of the articles ([4]) that his Heist of the Century album went gold through Atlantic Records, but that puts it immediately at odds with the statement that he released the album through someone else. I didn't see any other mention of the album releasing through anyone else, but if the gold can be confirmed then that would have him passing WP:MUSICBIO. I don't see where he's released any other albums than HotC- the rest are all appearances and mixtapes. I do want to state that the original layout of the article was largely copyvio from one of the sources I've since removed. I suppose it could've been speedied for that, but the notability claims here are vague enough that we really should have a proper AfD with the new guidelines so we can determine once and for all if he passes notability guidelines.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 09:43, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The album seems to have gotten onto a Billboard chart, but at 37th place on one of the specialized ranks. I'm not sure if that counts or not since it was "only" 37.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 10:05, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. Seems to be borderline important enough. There's a brief Allmusic bio and review, his album reached #37 on the Billboard R&B albums, contributions to several notable albums, e.g. [5], track used on a film soundtrack (the excellent Ghost Dog: Way of the Samurai), various other bits of coverage that suggest sufficient significance. --Michig (talk) 22:00, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:28, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, agree with Michig: minor notability but, however, passes the bar.Cavarrone (talk) 17:33, 14 November 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 00:32, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It is relatively minor coverage, but this is an underground rapper we are talking about here. Considering the #37 placement on a Billboard chart, I think it may be just enough to meet the criteria for inclusion set out at WP:MUSICBIO. — sparklism ^hey! 11:10, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Redirect (NAC) Rotten regard Softnow 00:38, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ainsley Bailey[edit]

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

Not a notable actor. Fails WP:NACTORS. Has had no significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions. Has one recurring role in a current TV series. Has no large fan base or a significant "cult" following. Has made no unique, prolific or innovative contributions to a field of entertainment. Fails WP:GNG as has received no significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, Geraldo Perez (talk) 05:57, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:33, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Shake It Up (TV series). I love the show, but this is the only thing she has done. If she were a regular cast member (or if she won some awards or scored some movie roles), I would suggest a keep. Erpert ^{Who is this guy? | Wanna talk about it?} 04:26, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The show is one of the best ones on Disney. Ainsley is amazing. She deserves a page if any of them have one. She should not be discriminated against. She is a notable actor.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.112.171.105 (talk • contribs) 08:09, 16 November 2012‎ (UTC)[reply]
- The fact that you like her doesn't necessarily equate to notability. Also, although the series she's on is notable, that doesn't necessarily mean everyone on the show is notable as well. Erpert ^{Who is this guy? | Wanna talk about it?} 10:12, 17 November 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 00:31, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect To Shake It Up (TV series) per Erpert. Fan-made obviously, perhaps WP:TOOSOON but fails WP:NACTOR for now. §FreeRangeFrog 22:37, 20 November 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. Yunshui 雲‍水 13:21, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sshguard[edit]

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

Afd as non notable, unable to csd as I believe software doesn't qualify but it also seems to advertise more then inform as well. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 06:39, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 18:02, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think due to the nature of Wikipedia we should let such articles to start, then improve and get growth gradually. I'm an IT security expert and believe that the Brute-Force attacks against software servers is an important issue today. While I was searching for appropriate software solutions to control such attack types, I encountered "SSHGuard". After some studying, I convinced that it worth to start an article about SSHGuard in the Wikipedia. I'm not the SHHGuard project manager or a fan, so the article isn't an advertisement at all! So please give a helping hand to improve such articles instead of killing them as a deficient infant!! Mjdtjm (talk) 06:40, 4 November 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, Mark Arsten (talk) 15:00, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

- We need independent reliable sources if we are to keep an article. I can't find much, although there's a review at linux.com 5 years ago Morwen - Talk 16:08, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Morwen, but I could! A simple googling resulted the followings:

http://linuxaria.com/recensioni/protect-your-server-with-sshguard?lang=en

http://howtounix.info/howto/sshguard-freebsd

http://blog.ijun.org/2011/12/sshguard-block-ssh-brute-force-attacks.html

http://unix.stackexchange.com/questions/3030/what-are-the-pros-cons-of-the-various-methods-to-block-brute-force-ssh-attacks

13:46, 11 November 2012 (UTC) comment added by Mjdtjm (talk • contribs)

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 00:11, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete The sources supplied here are not reliable. One blog and two how-to. The fourth is a forum discussion about it. I suspect that it could be a notable product, but I can't find any WP:RSes that have written feature articles about it. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:21, 13 November 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 November 13. Snotbot t • c » 17:15, 13 November 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 00:29, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

delete nothing in article or here establishes notability. For comparison it comes 21st on the sourceforge list of firewalls. While it may be good software we are an encylopedia not a list of software.--Salix (talk): 08:45, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Another case of WP:EXISTS for software. Fails WP:NSOFTWARE. §FreeRangeFrog 22:38, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to weet weet. MBisanz ^talk 00:54, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weet-weet[edit]

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

Unneccesary disambig page. I think the page is referring to the bird call of the birds in the disambig. Vacation^nine 23:23, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have done a little searching and I have amended the dab. "weet-weet" is a bird sound and it is also a alternative name of a bird species (or perhaps more than one bird species). Snowman (talk) 13:08, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I note that the editor who started the dab has not edited the Wiki for a few weeks. He has had notification of this deletion discussion on his talk page and I hope that he has chance to comment here. Snowman (talk) 13:17, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to weet weet, per WP:DABRELATED Delete per WP:GNG and common sense. There are no inbound non-hatnote article space links. If there are sourced refs to this birdsong, then I guess it could be kept. But AFAIK (and I'm not an ornithologist) this is a generic term used by laypersons. I've added the WP:BIRDS project tag, but am not sure whether any article alerts are set up, so am notifiying via the Project talk page too. -- Trevj (talk) 09:44, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I do not see the logic of saying that there are no inbound articles space links to this dab, since, a dab page, which has had all the links disambiguated, would not be expected to have any inbound articles (ie nothing in "what links here"). I have found RS for two meaning of weet-weet that can be found on the Wiki, as well as meanings that are not yet found on the Wiki. It seems common sense to me to keep the dab page. Snowman (talk) 13:14, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I see what you mean about the incoming dab links but still thought it might have some, if valid. -- Trevj (talk) 13:40, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This dab now has one "what links here" link from Weet weet, because a link to the dab "weet-weet" is in the signpost header there to assist readers. Snowman (talk) 15:50, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I note that you have changed your mind, but I do not follow your logic again. I have looked at WP:DABRELATED and I do not see anything there that would tend to support your point of view that "weet-weet" should be a redirect. If "weet-weet" was a redirect to "weet weet" (the throwing game), then people looking for "weet-weet" for the bird or bird calls will be disappointed. Snowman (talk) 22:36, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Common Chaffinch does contain the phrase "weet-weet" as an alternative name for the bird and the line in the article that says this is supported with four in-line references. This on-line dictionary says that weet-weet is a common European sandpiper, but I am not sure if it is a RS for the Wiki. Definitions are also found in the on-line OED, which is a reliable source, and the Wiktionary has an entry for weet-weet, which is based on the 1913 Chambers dictionary. The OED entry for weet-weet includes; "An imitation of the cry of certain birds, esp. the sandpiper and chaffinch. Also "n. as the name for this cry." Also; "Used as a name for the sandpiper". Also; an Australasian toy. The OED gives several supporting references including "1862 C. A. Johns Brit. Birds 625 Weet-weet, the Common Sandpiper." On my system a google web-search reported about 94,000 results in 0.36 seconds for "weet-weet", I have only checked a few of them, but it seems that the phrase "weet-weet" is widely used. I think that the dab should be kept. Snowman (talk) 10:33, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Lets look at WP:GNG:

"Significant coverage": A quick google search yields no coverage at all besides occasional non-notable dictionary sources. Vacation^nine 13:32, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Reliable": Not reliable. Dictionaries often have differing definitions and usually don't qualify as sources. Vacation^nine 13:32, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think that it is bizarre implying that the OED is not a reliable sourse. The OED is a dictionary which is a very reliable source for the wiki. It even has its own template for making it easier to write citations; see Template:OED Snowman (talk) 16:08, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Sources": No sources at all are given in the article. The disambig page is not neccesary as it does not refer to any other pages, rather the individual bird pages. Vacation^nine 13:32, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I do not know why you have not seen the references in the articles. Snowman (talk) 16:08, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Independent of the subject": Since there are no sources this is N/A. Vacation^nine 13:32, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I do not know why you have not seen the in-line references in the articles. Snowman (talk) 16:08, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously it qualifies under these WP:GNG criteria for deletion. Vacation^nine 13:32, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) I spotted that it was originally a redirect to Chaffinch. If we're saying that it's a notable term (i.e. a sourced imitation of the cry of certain birds) then should it really be a dab page? -- Trevj (talk) 13:40, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Have you changed your mind? The dab is now completely different from when the deletion discussion was started. Snowman (talk) 16:21, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'll have a look and a think. Cheers. -- Trevj (talk) 16:31, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It sounds to me that you are having some doubts and that you have not made up your mind at the present time. Snowman (talk) 19:02, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've now amended my initial comments above. -- Trevj (talk) 19:00, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think that WP:GNG is the wrong test for a DAB. As far as I can see WP:GNG is about the notability for articles and not for DABS. Of course, dabs can list items that only refer to a small portion of an article. I note that the page WP:GNG has "On Wikipedia, notability is a test used by editors to decide whether a topic can have its own article." prominent near the top of the page, so clearly it does not apply to this DAB. Snowman (talk) 14:07, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Even if it is not, see WP:DABNOT: "A disambiguation page is not a list of dictionary definitions. A short description of the common general meaning of a word can be appropriate for helping the reader determine context. Otherwise, there are templates for linking the reader to Wiktionary, the wiki dictionary; see Template:Wiktionary." Vacation^nine 14:42, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

From near the top of Wikipedia:Disambiguation; "Disambiguation is required whenever, for a given word or phrase on which a reader might search, there is more than one existing Wikipedia article to which that word or phrase might be expected to lead." Surely, week week needs disambiguation. The dab list guides readers quickly to the correct articles, which is exactly what dabs are for. Snowman (talk) 15:33, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I'm a British birder and I've never heard either of these terms. My Chamber Dictionary doesn't have these meanings, there are no RS sources, and a quick Google shows no WP:GNG Jimfbleak - talk to me? 10:37, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That is odd the Wiktionary has an entry based on the 1913 Chambers Dictionary. I have done a little searching and I have found some RS sources (see above). Try "weet-weet". Oxford English Dictionary (Online ed.). Oxford University Press. (Subscription or participating institution membership required.). You can use a UK library card number to log-on to the on-line OED. Snowman (talk) 11:29, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have substantially amended the dab and it now lists three items for disambiguation. Snowman (talk) 16:11, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Have you seen the improvements? Snowman (talk) 11:29, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As you have not contributed to this discussion for about one week, I presume that you are not particularly interested in the progress this discussion nor improvements to the dab. I guess that your original comment is now out-of-data, since it must be based on an old version of the dab. Snowman (talk) 15:18, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:57, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ as it stands. Clearly between the attested children's game and the bird nickname, there is some room for confusion, which is harmless to dispel. bd2412 T 16:34, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- After further consideration, I agree that this title should redirect to Weet-weet, with a hatnote there directing the reader to Common Chaffinch. Since there are only two actual links on the disambig page, this would appear to fall under WP:TWODABS. A user looking for the bird would be no more inconvenienced by being taken to the article on the game and seeing a hatnote there than they would be by being taken to a disambiguation page providing the exact same link. bd2412 T 15:35, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - ... weet-weet can be an old name for the Chaffinch and it call also be a call made by a number of bird species. The dab also has the signpost to Wiktionary. Snowman (talk) 21:18, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and then move weet weet (the game) to weet-weet because that is its standard spelling. It is not the case that weet-weet is a name for the chaffinch or sandpiper. As the OED says, it is an imitation of the bird's call. That is no more an alternative name for the bird than woof woof is another name for dog. Nor is it the name of the dog's call (that would be bark). Spinning Spark 02:04, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I do not agree with you and I think that you seem to have got a number of things wrong. You might have missed that the OED says that weet-weet is a sandpiper. The OED has three entries for weet-weet: 1 - verb, 2 - noun, 3 - int and noun. Have you seen all three? The Australian government spell it as weet weet, so I presume that weet weet is the Australian spelling. I think that the Article "weet weet" is best left in Australian English. Also, for comparison see the dabs; "Woof", "Meow (disambiguation)" and "Quack (disambiguation)", and I note that these dabs have the animal sound disambiguated. Incidentally, the sound a dog makes is "woof" and not "woof woof". Snowman (talk) 22:08, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You are right, the OED does have that entry, but I am still not convinced. Far be it from me to disagree with the OED, but I note that all their citations are from the 19th century. Trawling through many pages of gbook hits, all the modern uses of the term in reliable sources seem to be imitative rather than nominative. I support the hatnote at weet weet instead since it is still possible that a reader might try to look it up after reading a Victorian document about birds. Spinning Spark 17:15, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
On the question of the correct spelling for the Australian toy, this gbooks search shows an overwhelming preference for weet-weet. Australian government sites use both terms but possibly still with a bias for weet-weet. All in all, I would say that the toy/game should have the weet-weet title on the grounds of WP:COMMONNAME. Spinning Spark 17:33, 20 November 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 00:15, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to weet weet with hatnote there to Common Chaffinch, per BD2412. -- JHunterJ (talk) 17:02, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to weet weet and hatnote on Common Chaffinch per BD2412 and JHunterJ davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 04:37, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Ian McNabb. (non-admin closure) TheSpecialUser ^TSU 02:20, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Live at Life[edit]

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

Per the previous noms, fails WP:NALBUMS, obviously a fan creating the articles, just doing NPP, don't know how to group and nom, sorry! CaptainScreebo ^Parley! 19:54, 28 October 2012 (UTC) CaptainScreebo ^Parley! 19:54, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Again, i have added a secondary source including a review. --Jonie148 (talk) 11:01, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 20:56, 30 October 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 02:39, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or Merge to Ian McNabb or a new Ian McNabb discography article. Deleting all these articles Ian McNabb articles isn't going to improve the encyclopedia. He's clearly a notable artist, and we should preserve encyclopedic content. A separate discography article with more detail than is currently in the McNabb article might be the way to go. --Michig (talk) 07:12, 5 November 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 00:18, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to main artist. Live albums are not usually notable and this one doesn't have coverage in many reliable sources. STATic message me! 04:47, 13 November 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 November 13. Snotbot t • c » 17:00, 13 November 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 Huntley 00:13, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect To Ian McNabb. The AllMusic review seems to be the only reliable third-party ref here, and it's not enough to completely get this through WP:NALBUMS. §FreeRangeFrog 22:42, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Nitinol. MBisanz ^talk 00:54, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ridgway Banks[edit]

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

I am the article creator, and while i dont think this qualifies as a "PROD", i do respect User:Bgwhite's evaluation, "No independent, reliable references about Mr. Banks. The refs are about his inventions and not Banks." I would ask, IF the references show adequate notability, should this be about the person, the engine, or even just be a subsection of the Nitinol article. I have wondered when an article should be on a person, or their work, when its this marginal. I have a personal interest in the subject, but no actual COI, so i need perspective. Mercurywoodrose (talk) 08:40, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge I don't think there is enough to meet WP:GNG, as Mercurywoodrose has stated. I'm not seeing enough to have a stand alone page about the Banks Engine, but the name is common, so I might be missing something. The information would be useful on the Nitinol page, so redirect and merge there. There is also mention about banks at Shape-memory alloy#Engines that was added by Mercurywoodrose. I'd leave it Mercurywoodrose on what page is best to point the redirect. Bgwhite (talk) 21:11, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:52, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:52, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Id go with Nitinol as the main place for this info, thus Ridgway Banks redirecting there. Thats the word most people think of, rather than shape memory alloy engines, or solid state engines.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 20:25, 10 November 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 00:13, 13 November 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 November 13. Snotbot t • c » 17:11, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I'm not seeing enough sourcing about Banks to pass WP:GNG. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:01, 17 November 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 Huntley 00:13, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect or merge Per Bgwhite above; I can't find enough to squeak this one through WP:BIO. Perhaps a case of WP:TOOSOON, the topic is certainly interesting. Kudos to creator for bringing the article to consensus. §FreeRangeFrog 22:48, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Definitely NOT a case of too soon, though he should have been more notable in a perfect world...and still yet may be, someday. its hard to gain notability in such a narrow field, as all of your peers are also your competitors...Mercurywoodrose (talk) 05:16, 27 November 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. Yunshui 雲‍水 13:23, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dr. Gajjala Sudhakar[edit]

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

With ex-policy Wikipedia:Notability (doctors) being marked "historical", there doesn't seem to be a current guideline for notability on doctors, but these pediatricians, though somewhat prominent, don't seem to be notable. Ratzd'mishukribo (talk) 00:05, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If we want we can change the name of the article to a more specific one like "Dr. Gajjala Sudhakar, Kurnool". He is a very famous pediatrician in the Kurnool District, A.P., India and it would be not a great idea to completely delete the article. Please consider my suggestion. Thanks.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Prashanth Saddala (talk • contribs)

Delete. The only thing in the article that could conceivably be a claim to notability is the claim he founded the Rainbow Children's Hospital in Kurnool. This might be notable if reliable sources find it so. But there are three citations after this fact, none of which actually verify it, or even mention the chidren's hospital, and none of them are reliable in the Wikipedia sense. They are all just directories merely establishing proof of existence of Sudhakar. Spinning Spark 02:00, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Just noting that he is not mentioned on the Rainbow Children's Hospital website [6], the official site for Kumool Medical College is a deadlink [7], and the student site doesn't mention him [8]. Spinning Spark 11:34, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:50, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:50, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:50, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Spinningspark's observation, if I searched correctly, applies to Dr. Rafiq Ahmed, the other nominee (also from Kurnool). Ratzd'mishukribo (talk) 18:59, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I had not noticed two articles were nominated. Yes, delete both with the added comment that the source for the claim that Ahmed teaches Advanced Cardiovascular Life Support actually verifies only that he is the treasurer of the committee. Spinning Spark 22:32, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete both No question they are physicians, and I'm sure they are respected and important. But it takes more than that to have a page at Wikipedia. It takes significant coverage by independent reliable sources, and I could not find any. Nothing at all at Google Scholar, nothing at Google News, only social media sites at Google. And there doesn't seem to be much verification of the claims in the article. --MelanieN (talk) 22:45, 17 November 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 00:12, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The physician has not received significant coverage in academic journals or textbooks. The citations listed in the article are not reliable. Subject doesn't meet WP:GNG.--xanchester (t) 03:15, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Redirect (NAC) Rotten regard Softnow 00:32, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Blood Stained[edit]

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

Non notable song (not even a single), no sources. L1A1 FAL (talk) 22:53, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 18:22, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Jugulator, the parent album. The song does not appear to warrant an article (fails WP:GNG and WP:NSONGS); the latter guideline suggests that such songs "should redirect to another relevant article, such as for the songwriter, a prominent album or for the artist". Gongshow ^Talk 15:58, 17 November 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 Huntley 00:12, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect Fails WP:NSONGS by far as I can see, but it's a likely search term. No prejudice against turning it back into an article if the song ends up being notable on its own. §FreeRangeFrog 22:51, 20 November 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. Notable enough (small amount of references) (non-admin closure) Vacation^nine 03:15, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Marianna Biernacka[edit]

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

I think Saints are considered notable here--there will always be sufficient documentation. But she is Beatified but not yet canonized. DGG ( talk ) 00:58, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- I earlier suggested merging with 108 Martyrs of World War II. Changed my vote since there is plenty of documentation on individuals who are beatified, or Blessed; they are venerated as a saint would be but with certain restrictions, such as confining veneration to a certain geographic area, or a particular group.[9] Potential saints are beatified in small numbers, so I would suggest that they are notable; notable enough to have institutions such as schools named after them. In the case of Marianna Biernacka, she is one of the 108 Martyrs of World War II and was beatified as a member of this group. But, there are a number of articles on beatified individuals including several members of the 108 martyrs. There is plenty of documentation for Biernacka, I'll add a couple of sources for the article on Biernacka. OttawaAC (talk) 01:31, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:05, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:05, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. I'd think hat all people who were beatified are notable (disclaimer: I consider myself non-religious). She also seems to be mentioned in a number of reliable sources, so there is some depth of coverage out there. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 21:13, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Sourcing is very weak. Just passing mentions. Doesn't meet WP:BIO or WP:42 or WP:GNG. The bar for notability in biographies is much higher than is being presumed above. Qworty (talk) 02:44, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Sourcing may be weak, but it is not non-existent, and some of it at least is reliable (book sources). The entry in Saintly Women of Modern Times in particular is substantial. There is not much known, but there is no prohibition here on short articles so long as they are verifiable and notable. I agree with others above that beatification is intrinsically notable, it requires an Apostolic Letter from the Pope and will usually be widely covered in RS, at the very least in Sedis, the journal of record for the Holy See. Spinning Spark 18:18, 19 November 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 00:12, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

keep the sourcing is reliable, in secondary sources and independent of the subject and some is substantial.--Salix (talk): 09:03, 20 November 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) Go Phightins! 23:04, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Bachir Boumaaza[edit]

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

Lack of evidence of notability per WP:BIO. References are mostly not third party. FunkyCanute (talk) 14:14, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I believe this article must be kept but it does need sources. Sources has been proposed on Talk:Athene_(disambiguation). I have added sources myself from what I have found today. alby13 (talk) 05:06, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Belgium-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 18:24, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 18:24, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 18:24, 31 October 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, Yunshui 雲‍水 13:08, 5 November 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 00:12, 13 November 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 November 13. Snotbot t • c » 16:38, 13 November 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 Huntley 00:10, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

keep seem to be enough sources about the chap a quick search yields [10], [11] he's apparently just play a million hands in a month.--Salix (talk): 09:13, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Well-known YouTube "personality" that certainly meets WP:GNG. §FreeRangeFrog 23:21, 20 November 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. Yunshui 雲‍水 13:24, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Chordials[edit]

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

Bringing this here from a speedy tag, since the list of awards is an evident credible assertion of notability. However, the band does not seem to have made it very far towards being encyclopedic. Splash - tk 19:57, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Notability under WP:GNG or WP:MUSIC far from established.--GrapedApe (talk) 02:14, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 21:00, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:39, 30 October 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 02:39, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, KTC (talk) 00:06, 13 November 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 November 13. Snotbot t • c » 16:42, 13 November 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 Huntley 00:10, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:ORG or WP:MUSIC. Student club at a single school. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 00:35, 20 November 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. Not notable, lack of coverage by reliable sources. Drmies (talk) 02:19, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Gernot Wagner[edit]

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

Deleted in the past: [12]

Review contribs of the editor who recreated the article and the data in the infobox. Also note that the editor was able to paste a complete copy of the original article.

Also: [13]

As was listed in the original deletion: WP:NOTABILITY, WP:SELFSOURCE, WP:PROMO, etc. PeterWesco (talk) 01:07, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:09, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Setting aside the procedural problems, looking at the sources, every source is either a primary source or unreliable (except the Harvard Crimson which is too little to base an article on). Per WP:GNG there are not multiple independent reliable sources that discuss the subject in-depth. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 05:46, 14 November 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 Huntley 00:10, 20 November 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. Consensus is that the company itself is not notable. Monty ₈₄₅ 19:03, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Visualase[edit]

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

Non-notable company. Only press release[14] and Wiki entry[15] sources found. Kkmurray (talk) 17:16, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The very reference 3 in the article is to an FDA statement that the device is not sufficiently distinctive to require approval. DGG ( talk ) 17:46, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep I've found numerous sources talking about the use of Visualase, and its advantages over traditional ablative methods. It's also mentioned in the article on Ablative brain surgery, in the "Methods" section. That said, the cited source does not specifically mention Visualase, however, it can be confirmed that that's what they're using. I'd add this

"link" (PDF). to the citations, but I'm still pretty new to editing on here, and don't really know how. I can't even remember my username that I created a few years back, but never really used. I highly recommend reading that article, though. It provides significant rationale for notability of Visualase. Also, it's simply very interesting. While the doctor admits that, being a user of the technology, he's close to it, that does not invalidate his statements regarding the facts. There are a lot of other discussions regarding Visualase that can be found on that site.

As for the device not being sufficiently distinctive to require approval, that just means that the usage technique, in terms of how it's inserted into the body, is basically the same, so it doesn't require additional approvals, but the product itself is radically different, and it allows the use of much smaller burr holes in the skull, to minimize long-term impacts. Smaller holes in the skull is a major development. Additionally, it allows real-time monitoring of the procedure using MRI, which can greatly improve results and safety. Forgive me, I don't know how to keep these paragraphs indented.173.88.113.201 (talk) 01:20, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There are two issues here: one is the notability of the company Visualase and the other is the notability of the MRI guided laser ablation technique that is the basis of their product. I don't see multiple non-trivial cites that establish the notability of Visualase, Inc. the company. There are many literature cites for MRI guided laser ablation, which – along with MRI guided radio-frequency, microwave, and ultrasound ablation – is an established surgical procedure (here's a review from earlier this year [16]). Expanding the ablative brain surgery to include a discussion of these techniques is a excellent idea, but doesn't directly relate to the notability of Visualase, Inc. --Kkmurray (talk) 14:48, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A vehement defense by an IP with no edit history other than one edit to the article in question makes me wonder if there is a WP:COI here. If the IP has edited the article from another account or has a vested interest in it he or she should say so per WP:DISCUSSAFD. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Meters (talk • contribs) 21:26, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I'm not seeing the independent, reliable sources needed to show notability, If the IP has "found numerous sources talking about the use of Visualase" then perhaps soem could be listed fo rus to evaluate. Meters (talk) 21:30, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:36, 5 November 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 00:06, 13 November 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 November 13. Snotbot t • c » 17:21, 13 November 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 Huntley 00:05, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete Not notable per above. Only "keep" vote is probably from the original author.--Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 21:15, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Tending towards keep, though. Sandstein 16:56, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Arnljot Elgsaeter[edit]

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

Possible vanity page without clear claim of notability. Creation by a WP:SPA raises a red flag. An H-index of 25 is not very high for an emeritus prof. (He should probably almost that high with citations from his grad students alone.) T R 10:33, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I did a news search in Atekst, which includes his local newspaper Adresseavisen. The only hit was a short article in which he has a three-sentence comment regarding that one of his colleagues (not him) had an article published in Science. The article provides no assertion of notability, it is unreferenced, there is no academic reasons for him to be notable and I cannot see that he has had press coverage which makes him notable. Arsenikk ^(talk) 21:37, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:32, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:32, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. h-index of 25 clearly passes WP:Prof#C1 by Wikipedia's standards, 15 would suffice. Xxanthippe (talk) 01:21, 13 November 2012 (UTC).[reply]
Criterion WP:Prof#C1 requires the person to be highly cited. An h-index of 25 would be high if he was mid career, but after 40 years it is nothing to write home about. (citatitions from grad students and other collaborators would probably bring him there). I think you would be hard pressed to find emeriti professors in his field with a lower h-index.T R 07:21, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please cite policy for your claim. h-index is taken to be a cumulative measure. It does not matter when it is achieved. Xxanthippe (talk) 11:20, 13 November 2012 (UTC).[reply]

Citations are always considered relative to other similar scientists (so you have to compare with other emeriti in his field). You have given absolutely no argument why you think that 25 is an high H-index for his field. Data suggests that is not. Of the 15 co-authors on his papers with more than 50 citations only 2 have a lower H-index (16 en 23), while the median is somewhere around 50. So please provide some proper argument to base that his H-index is high.T R 12:55, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Have a look at the discussion here [17]. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:57, 15 November 2012 (UTC).[reply]

I see no real discussion there, only you pulling numbers out of your ass. In practice, a useful way of the determining if an academic is highly cited is to compare the academic to his/her coauthors. This gives a rather solid indication of the citation numbers of the academic in question are high or not. In this case, the academic is around the 20th percentile in terms of h-index compared to the coauthors on his most highly cited papers. This is a very clear indication that this person is in relative terms not "extremely highly cited as is required by WP:Prof#C1.T R 14:25, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It does not help your argument to insult another editor. The discussion [18] I referred to provoked no dissent from the views expressed about the numbers establishing precedent for notability. You also misquote WP:Prof#C1. It actually says 'either several extremely highly cited scholarly publications or a substantial number of scholarly publications with significant citation rates.' The citations of the subject [19] satisfy both. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:17, 21 November 2012 (UTC).[reply]

And yet you still have to provide any argument as too whether your last statement is true in the context of the subject's field. I think I have quite clearly demonstrated that this is not the case. For a professor in his field he is in the lower percentiles of numbers of citations. (Also note that I did not insult you, I just said that you pulling numbers out of your ass, i.e. making claims without backing them up. Something that you are still doing now.)T R 07:27, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, fails WP:GNG. Aftenposten archives yield nothing of value either. Geschichte (talk) 10:49, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Arsenikk and Geschichte - fails WP:GNG as there has not been any valuable coverage in the biggest newspapers in Norway. Mentoz86 (talk) 15:08, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Three papers with over 200 citations each, first author on each, and far and away the most cites in a search for "erythrocyte shape", convince me that he passes WP:PROF#C1. Looking for newspaper coverage is pointless and irrelevant as that's not where one expects to find coverage of academics. I improved the referencing of the article; it's still very weak, but a lot better than its previous nonexistent state. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:11, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Those numbers are not meaningful without a context. We have already established that the subject is/was active in a very highly cited field. Daniel Branton, his doctoral advisor and coauthor on each of the three papers with more than 200 citations has over 20 papers with more than 200 citations, the top cited paper having over 1300 citations. Clearly, Daniel Branton is notable, however Arnljot Elgsaeter's main claim to fame seems to be that he was his gradstudent. Beyond that, there is little to point towards his notability.T R 10:45, 19 November 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 00:09, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete It looks like a vanity page to me. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 21:20, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I can see no evidence that this terse stub of a BLP is a vanity page. Even if it were there would be no policy reason to delete it. I remind you of BLP policy 'Contentious material about living persons (or recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion.' The present BLP seems to me to be a paragon of modesty and restraint. Compare it to this one. Xxanthippe 02:17, 21 November 2012 (UTC).[reply]

Could you sign your comment please? --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 19:31, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per David Eppstein. The "erythrocyte shape" argument convinced me.John Z (talk) 01:07, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep He is a member of Royal Norwegian Society of Sciences and Letters which I think makes him notable per WP:PROF#C3. Iselilja (talk) 17:34, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for finding this — I think it makes the case for WP:PROF much more objective. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:11, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks. That actually addresses one of my biggest concerns: It appeared as if this academic at the end of his career had never received any formal recognition from his peers, which would have been a strong contraindication of him being notable. However, being elected to a national academy is a clear indication of having been noted.T R 11:02, 27 November 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. --Kinu ^t/_c 06:32, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Anoop Singh[edit]

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

Notability has not been established and the claims are suspect. The only reference is what appears to be a selection for a training camp rather than any prominent position. Claims of coaching olympic athletes are contradicted by the well referenced articles on those same athletes (see Sushil Kumar and Yogeshwar Dutt). Peter Rehse (talk) 06:19, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The reference shows that the subject was a coach of the Indian national wrestling team, information that you removed from the article immediately before nominating it for deletion. Phil Bridger (talk) 09:14, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not quite - I was trying to merge the two sets of equivalent information rather than hide anything. The intent was to make the article more acceptable rather than less and the reference remains. I read it quite carefully and it appeared to me that they were selecting coaches for a camp rather the national coach.Peter Rehse (talk) 09:20, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, a camp - a national wrestling team camp. Phil Bridger (talk) 11:29, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough - I modified the article to expand on this. Even so I don't think membership of the coaching staff confers notability but that can of course be debated.Peter Rehse (talk) 11:38, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 06:19, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete The only source is a 1 line mention of him in a list of coaches. The article says he's coached several Olympians, but their articles don't list him as one of their coaches. In addition, the Olympic wrestlers were freestyle and he's listed as a Greco-Roman coach. Mdtemp (talk) 22:41, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not enough coverage for notability. BeyondKneesReach (talk) 05:20, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Well I tried - the original author has removed the only reference and interjected his own brand of hyperbole. At least the dubious coaching claims have been removed. The subject is clearly non-notable.10:29, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

And reverted - thanks and good luck Phil. I did not want to make the effort.Peter Rehse (talk) 10:42, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 00:08, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Very little in the way of sources, certainly not enough to support more than a one-sentence description. --Jprg1966 ^(talk) 15:35, 20 November 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. Consensus is that the person is probably notable, but that the article as nominated was utter junk. It has now been rewritten, so the issue seems to be resolved. Sandstein 16:39, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Temple Hauptfleisch[edit]

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

Person is not note-worthy but have a little significance, the article has only one source and I think it is unreliable or is affiliated with the subject, possibly autobiographical. Mediran ^{talk to me!} 07:40, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom Jimfbleak - talk to me? 18:10, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This is a grotesquely bad article as it stands, but as to the basic question of whether the subject has any notability, I can find him described as a "theatre luminary" in the Cape Times in 2008: [20] (via Highbeam, subscription reqd). There is also a brief biography in this book. AllyD (talk) 21:44, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:21, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:21, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:21, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:21, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:AUTHOR, WP:BK, WP:GNG, and probably anything else you want to name. The article itself is an example of how not to write an article--just a long mishmash of unsourced WP:RESUME and probably WP:AUTO as well. Qworty (talk) 01:07, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article is terrible and probably an WP:AUTO WP:RESUME but I think it might pass WP:SCHOLAR on possibly four points:

SCHOLAR #1: There are a lot of citations under Google Scholar and Worldcat, but I don't know how to use these for AfD purposes - what sorts of numbers do we look for?

SCHOLAR #5: Chair of the drama dept of the University of Stellenbosch (1995-2005)[21]

SCHOLAR #7: Head of the Centre for South African Theater Research of the Human Sciences Research Council (a South African government agency).[22]

SCHOLAR #8: Executive editor of the South African Theater Journal [23]

If the article is kept, I'll work on parring it down based on sources. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 03:54, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. In an attempt to calibrate the citation numbers, I searched for articles on South African Theatre rather than searching for Hauptfleisch's name (he has articles with citation counts 46, 27, and then smaller numbers, not really convincing of WP:PROF#C1 by itself. I found a few other authors with bigger impact: Coplan & Wright '85 (472 citations), Kavanagh '85 (128 citations), Kruger '99 (78 citations). But Hauptfleisch's papers were still in the mix, so I think it's fair to call him a leading expert on the subject. Is that enough? I'm not sure. But re Green Cardamom's comment: he clearly does not pass #5 or #7, and the case for #8 is dubious. (Is this a major journal?) #5 is for endowed chairs (that is, "The So-and-so Professor of X"), not department chairs, and #7 is for heads of universities, not heads of centres. So I think the only hope is #1. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:19, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and clean up. Seems to me to satisfy WP:SCHOLAR on several grounds, as stated above. The quality of the article, advanced as an argument by all delete votes so far, is irrelevant, and the bald and false assertion that it fails probably anything else you want to name is most unimpressive. (The information in the article is actually not too bad, but agree the article is terrible for other reasons.) Andrewa (talk) 06:30, 17 November 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 00:07, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep per above. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 21:24, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Probably notable, but blank and stubify the thing, it's terrible as it stands. LK (talk) 11:46, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and recreate from scratch. The subject does appear to pass WP:SCHOLAR, and so we should have an article on him. This, however, is not it, and is frankly so unusable that my recommendation would be to delete it entirely and create a new article from the ground up. Yunshui 雲‍水 11:56, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Per the above suggestions I have entirely rewritten the article as a short stub. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:33, 27 November 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 02:24, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Trance Mission[edit]

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

Excruciatingly non-notable band that abysmally fails WP:BAND. Article was created by a notorious wikispammer whose arbcom revealed these atrocities [24]. The guy has his own company, the Association for Consciousness Exploration, which hosts the Starwood Festival, and for the past six years he's been creating and defending promotional articles about everyone who's ever been associated with the festival. Incredibly, this article about Trance Mission has been tagged for lack of references for nearly five years now. That's the way the guy operates--writes a bunch of completely unsourced articles about all of his friends, the articles somehow survive here for years, and then if anybody touches an article of "his," he goes berserk per WP:OWN. It's time to stand up for the integrity of Wikipedia and finally remove this WP:ADVERT. He likes to WP:CANVASS like mad, so the closing admin should watch out for meat puppets. Qworty (talk) 11:24, 12 November 2012 (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)).

Delete References do not establish notability. - MrOllie (talk) 15:24, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete Surely it qualifies under G5? Lukeno94 (talk) 16:00, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:34, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely do NOT delete I have now taken steps to begin to correct this article which was admittedly lacking in some essential truths about Trance Mission AND somewhat misdirected regarding even the names of the members of the band. As time allows There will be more links and references put into the page over the next few days which will once and for all establish the good name AND provenance of this group and give it the necessary gravitas to be worthy of the page it currently occupies. While I accept certain elements of Qworty's critique of the manner in which this page was originally placed I appreciate the opportunity to both set the record straight and begin to address some of the concerns of those who have so far commented in this thread. Personally I am new to contributing to Wikipedia so I am moving comparatively slowly with the links/references/coding aspect. User:MungoWildebeest18:40 13 November 2012

Really? It reads more like an advert now than ever! I still see no evidence whatsoever this band ever charted. Your edit summary of "put in PR references and links" says enough for me. The article is an absolute mess now. I still see this as being a clear delete. Lukeno94 (talk) 09:53, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A band does not have to "chart" to become notable, and in fact most "bands" do not aspire to "chart". That's the most ridiculous criterion for notability I've ever heard. Viriditas (talk) 09:50, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And, it looks like they did chart for 18 weeks on CMJ's new world music chart.[25] Viriditas (talk) 20:27, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Trance Mission, Stephen Kent, Kenneth Newby, and City of Tribes are all notable in the music world.[26] Qworty has most certaintly failed WP:BEFORE. This appears to be a bad faith nomination. Viriditas (talk) 09:49, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Billboard magazine has at least four articles that mention them. I have updated the article accordingly. The Steve 11:36, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Trance Mission is a notable and unique band featuring Stephen Kent (musician), perhaps the most prominent didgeridoo player in the recording industry. A simple reading of the nomination by Qworty above will show that this is not about Trance Mission, but an attack on me personally and an attempt to re-litigate a six year old arbcom he didn't like the outcome of. The article can certainly use some work, but please don't be distracted, just judge the subject on its own merits.Rosencomet (talk) 12:37, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Notable based on what guideline? --Nounique names 16:06, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

um, the GNG? Coverage in independent, reliable sources like SF Weekly, Billboard Magazine, The Oregonian, and The Seattle Times. These are all in the article itself, should you deign to read it... The Steve 01:19, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ - fails GNG. Also trout the nom, as this discussion should not entertain the author questions presented. --Nouniquenames 16:06, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Wrong. The band does not fail GNG. They are widely known in the music world, they've been written about extensively in the music literature (see the further reading section for a sample) and they are considered notable. This is a bad faith nomination complete with bad faith "delete" votes made by editors who never bothered to check WP:BEFORE. Trouts all around are needed. Viriditas (talk) 19:45, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Keep as more sources have turned up. --Nounique names 05:51, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. What this band has done with the didgeridoo is remarkable and quite notable. I was really impressed when I heard them on 98 Rock (WIYY) in Baltimore a few months ago. Too bad the article says so little about this accomplishment; it needs plenty of expanding, not deletion. I'm concerned about the tone of the delete nomination, specifically the comment, "abysmally fails". Folklore1 (talk) 00:38, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Trance Mission is a known band and features one of the worlds most renown didgeridoo players. This entry should be kept. Vittala (talk) 13:46, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Sufficient coverage already cited in the article, and a suitable GBooks search makes notability obvious. Even if WP:BEFORE had been followed, a nominator should be open to the possibility of being wrong, and avoid statements like that opening sentence. --Michig (talk) 17:35, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I've seen this band play and are most definitely very unique. The didgeridoo is not a prop instrument either, and is used quite handily in a way I've never seen other bands attempt. As stated above, it features a world renowned didgeridoo player as well. Sidianmsjones (talk) 20:21, 19 November 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 00:05, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I don't give a rat's ass about electronica or digeridoos or any of that crap and I haven't been canvassed. One glance at the GBooks search greenlinked by Michig above should bring this challenge to a rapid end, I think. Multiple independently-published sources showing in the piece and others out there on the internets... Carrite (talk) 02:18, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Never heard of them, but reliable sources have certainly taken enough notice for them to pass WP:GNG. First Light (talk) 05:59, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I think this is another example of how a delete tag can save an article. This is sourced nicely at this point. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 21:26, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep agree with User:Sue_Rangell.--Vidkun (talk) 17:44, 21 November 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. It seems that the concept is not yet sufficiently widespread to have received enough coverage for Wikipedia - when such coverage arises, the article can be recreated. Yunshui 雲‍水 11:52, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Distance-weighted estimator[edit]

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

Original research, self-advertising
Russian section of Wikipedia is currently discussing this subject. It is in fact described nowhere except for the paper written by scientists who suggested this statistical measure, and we have some ground for suspicions that this article had been created by Yury Dodonov himself. I find that this article represents original research and implies self-advertisement, so I suggest that it should be deleted. --Andiorahn (talk) 13:35, 12 November 2012 (UTC)— Andiorahn (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Comment Since the article is based on a published paper, I don't think the article itself contains original research. On the other hand, I am a new editor and may be missing something. The article has no other independent references and may fail notability guidelines because of it. It seems a well written article. I defer to my Russian colleagues and others for recommendation of keep or delete.Mark viking (talk) 22:44, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:37, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There is no evidence that the topic has received the widespread attention needed for notability. Xxanthippe (talk) 01:27, 13 November 2012 (UTC).[reply]
what is the problem? really good measure keep Ging72 (talk) 02:11, 13 November 2012 (UTC)— Ging72 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

"Good" is not enough. Extensive sources are needed. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:52, 13 November 2012 (UTC).[reply]

um… may be. but formal viewpoint isn't always good viewpoint. in my opinion if article will be deleted it will be a formal mistake Ging72 (talk) 05:16, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Never mind. When the hordes of references that the topic no doubt deserves eventuate the article can be recreated. Xxanthippe (talk) 05:21, 13 November 2012 (UTC).[reply]

This is not original research in the sense intended in Wikipedia's policy; i.e. it does not embody findings published for the first time in a Wikipedia article. I'm currently leaning slightly towards keep. Michael Hardy (talk) 03:59, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete! This is coi and undue. There is an extensive literature on this topic, which is ignored: Books on Voronoi tessellations, potential theory, multivariate analysis. David Eppstein has written on related topics. (Alternatively, a stub could be retained.) Kiefer.Wolfowitz 19:50, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is an ad hoc formula used in a single paper. We need more than that for an article. If the formula is used in several other papers then the article can be re-created. We don't usually allow academics to publicize their work in this way. I think Wolfowitz means there is extensive literature on measures of central tendency, not on this specific formula or topic. Dingo1729 (talk) 00:54, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Isn't this just the same thing as the (much more well-established) geometric median? The idea of finding the weighted mean of a set of points, weighted by their inverse distance from the result, seems like exactly how Weiszfeld's algorithm for the geometric median works. So this seems to be a reinvention of the wheel under a new and non-notable name. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:59, 16 November 2012 (UTC) Incorrect — see below discussion. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:24, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No, this is not the same. Not going into details - the geometric median coincides with the median in the one-dimensional case, and the distance-weighted mean (for unidimensional data) is obviously not the same as median. YuryD (talk) 09:25, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You say it's obvious, but it's not obvious to me. In what respect is this different from Weiszfeldt's algorithm? —David Eppstein (talk) 15:45, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Briefly, Weiszfeldt's algorithm minimizes the distance between a point-estimate of location and the actual data points (doing this iteratively), thus producing a median (let's consider only the one-dimensional data). Distance-weighted mean (DWM) has nothing to do with the distance between the obtained estimate of location and the actual data points, it deals only with the distances between each given data point and the other data points to produce weighting coefficients. Am I right that you expect me to show that the algorithm for DWM does not produce a median (which is in fact computed by Weiszfeldt's algorithm), or in other words that the sum of distances between the DWM and sample data points is not necessarily minimal? (for a general case, because the two estimates coincide for a symmetric distribution like many other measures of location) YuryD (talk) 17:11, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, you're right, I misread. Weiszfeld is the weighted mean, inversely weighted by the distance to the center; this one is a weighted mean, inversely weighted by the average distance to the other points. I stand by my delete, but for different reasons now: I can't find any reliable secondary sources that discuss this and put it into context with other central tendancies, so it appears to fail WP:GNG. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:24, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot! Yes, this measure is a new one – we first presented it in 2011, and this was not because of a theoretical interest - we primarily intended to use it for our research purposes (analysis of response times in cognitive tasks). Since that, we published two papers in Intelligence with analyses that were based on this measure (and related measures such as distance-weighted standard deviation and distance-weighted standard score), but it doesn't look like this would qualify for reliable secondary sources (these were practical applications, not even comparative simulation studies). When I created a wiki page on this measure a year ago I simply was not aware of this requirement. That's fine with me if you delete it because of the absence of citation – we can only wait and see if it is extensively used or not. I really did not even intend to show up in this discussion, I only didn't want to end up with the assertion that this was a reinvention of the wheel. Thanks again, Yury S. Dodonov, PhD YuryD (talk) 18:27, 16 November 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 00:04, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete puff piece. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 21:30, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete After looking over the discussion and searching some more for independent references and finding none, I am changing my neutral stance. I suggest deletion on the basis on lack of independent reliable sources. Except for lack of sources, the article and paper seem like perfectly fine research. The idea seems to bear some relation to Inverse distance weighting interpolation methods. The paper is recent, however, and it is probably too soon for the distance-weighted estimator method to diffuse into reviews, books and news sources. When such independent sources become available, recreation of this article would be reasonable. Mark viking (talk) 22:09, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List of brown dwarfs. MBisanz ^talk 00:56, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WISE J154459.27+584204.5[edit]

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

Non-notable astronomical object. Completely fails WP:NASTRO. Even the single real source has little more than a single row in a table on this object. The article is several months old and shows no sign of being improved in sourcing or conversion of the lede to Plain English. I'll admit to not being an expert in the field, but there doesn't appear to be any claim of notability in the article (I'll admit I could have misplaced it among the jargon). (Depending on the outcome of this AfD, I may nominate other members of Category:WISE objects for deletion at a later date). Stuartyeates (talk) 02:53, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:30, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NASTRO and WP:MAPOUTCOMES. I did not find any published sources referring in depth to this object. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:46, 31 October 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, Mark Arsten (talk) 15:07, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect as the guideline you cite says to do. "This guideline does not prohibit the creation or maintenance of list articles which contain tables of properties and information related to astronomical objects. However, such lists are still subject to Wikpedia's content policies, such as verifiability and no original research." See WP:NASTHELP, which specifies that AfD is only the last resort if redirecting/merging to a list is for some reason unsuitable, such as the information being unverifiable. DGG ( talk ) 17:53, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to List of brown dwarfs per DGG. This object seems to be 75 light-years from meeting WP:GNG so a stand-alone article is not justified. Sideways713 (talk) 18:12, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Were this brown dwarf estimated to be within 50 light-years I would support the article as one of the closest brown dwarfs known. -- Kheider (talk) 13:13, 8 November 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 00:15, 13 November 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 November 13. Snotbot t • c » 17:21, 13 November 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 Huntley 00:04, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of brown dwarfs. Plausible search term, and redirects are cheap. WP:NASTRO recommends redirecting.--xanchester (t) 00:06, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
delete nothing to distinguish this from many other stars. WP not an astronomical catalogue. No convinced this is interesting enough to warrant a redirect.--Salix (talk): 10:51, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and Redirect notability guidlines do not apply here. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 21:32, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There's nothing especially notable about this particular brown dwarf. In addition, I have my doubts about the entire list of brown dwarfs page. It lists about 50 stars, and there are over 600 known brown dwarfs. The list seems completely haphazard, with no reason given for why those fifty stars are included. As such, there's no need to toss one more random brown dwarf onto the list. PianoDan (talk) 19:52, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to appropriate list of WISE objects, or Brown Dwarf objects. There are a host of articles just like this one, with nearly identical text, all from one reference. None of the objects are notable. AstroCog (talk) 01:34, 28 November 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. Any subsequent redirect is an editorial decision. Sandstein 16:36, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Indymedia.ie[edit]

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

I'm not sure if this branch of Indymedia is notable enough for its own article. The article as it exists is basically a smear piece against the site. If it's not deleted or merged, it needs to be stubbed at a minimum and watched much more closely. Gigs (talk) 17:22, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:48, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:48, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as WP:ATTACK and, more importantly, for failing WP:GNG. Qworty (talk) 08:54, 14 November 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 Huntley 00:04, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

redirect Independent Media Center. There looks like there are plenty of references to the Irish Indymedia in the press google news and plenty in google books. An article could be written but this is not it. A redirect will give the reader a more neutral idea of what an indymedia site is about.--Salix (talk): 11:19, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for failing WP:GNG. Its a pretty obscure site little known in Ireland Xyzspaniel (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 22:28, 25 November 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. Yunshui 雲‍水 11:47, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Cheyenne Carthy[edit]

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

An actress who has done 7 episodes of TV. A search of "Cheyenne Carthy" reveals only 84 hits, most of which are to "fanpop". I'm unable to find any independent, reliable references. A search of Cheyenne Carthy (without quotes) reveals alot of hits for Cheyenne McCarthy, so I may have missed something. Prod was contested Bgwhite (talk) 00:03, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Far too soon to be considered notable and there aren't any reliable sources to verify the little work she has accomplished. This is an open and shut case of a non-notable actor, SwisterTwister talk 07:29, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Too little to work with. --Jprg1966 ^(talk) 15:30, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:57, 21 November 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. Yunshui 雲‍水 11:47, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Verbal Deception[edit]

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

Unsigned band, not notable; one album made with 'Scarab Productions' which is apparently a local promoter, not a record label Львівське (говорити) 15:58, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I'm unable to find significant coverage in reliable sources for this group; does not appear to meet WP:GNG or WP:BAND. Gongshow ^Talk 17:50, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Google News found results here, here and here (second result from the top, the page also shows my total of three results). Despite adding "heavy metal", "2002" and "Calgary", I haven't found any other relevant news results aside from this French website (which would probably be of questionable reliability) while I was searching with Google France. I also searched with Google Canada but only found this event listing which provides a review from lotfp.com (another link of questionable reliability). Next, I starting searching with the second album and Google News found one result. Unfortunately, this result provides little information through the preview. A search with their debut EP provided zero Google News results. Although I found several results, they probably aren't very well-known, considering there is only a MySpace page but not an official website or an equivalent. I also have the impression that they haven't been active recently. SwisterTwister talk 21:58, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:48, 13 November 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 00:03, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 21:34, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I cannot find anything outside of the sources mentioned above that indicates meeting the guidlines for inclusion set out at WP:MUSICBIO. — sparklism ^hey! 11:32, 26 November 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. Yunshui 雲‍水 11:47, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Shaz Shabeer[edit]

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

Film marketer, doesn't seem to be notable. Looks like he's had one blurb about him, and once been interviewed on television. Has been involved with major projects but I don't know that his role was important. May be a language issue (he works on Malayam film projects) so I'm bringing it here to get more eyes on it. Calliopejen1 (talk) 21:27, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The page is pretty much just advertising, and I'm fairly certain the user who created it is the subject of the page. I also can't find really anything notable about him, nor can I find any reliable sources on him. TravellerQLD ^{(talk | contribs)} 02:26, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 18:10, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 18:10, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 18:10, 15 November 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 Huntley 00:03, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I'm inclined to vote delete because a search at Google News India and several newspapers including The Hindu, Times of India (though I find Times of India to be unreliable sometimes), and Deccan Chronicle (it seems Deccan Chronicle only has that one article from March 2012). Another search provided one result here that wouldn't provide anything useful and a search with his company also provided nothing useful. Although the Deccan Chronicle article claims "he has been in the film marketing business for 12 years", there isn't any evidence of this but considering technology is new to some parts of India, this is probably to blame. Additionally, film marketing business isn't a field that will receive much attention. The remaining possibility is that sources aren't English. SwisterTwister talk 07:52, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to WRSI#History. MBisanz ^talk 00:56, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Radio Skutnik[edit]

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

Couldn't find any coverage on web or in news archives. I don't know what else to say, it really seems like there is nothing out there for this topic. Fails WP:GNG. MisterUnit (talk) 18:00, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

delete A visit to the article on one of the two radio stations involved in this shows that this article is extremely misleading. Ed Skutnik made a series of shell corporations for these stations; this is but one of them. Skutnik's article redirects here, but if anything it is he who should have the article. I cannot however finds any evidence for his independent notability. Mangoe (talk) 18:43, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:06, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:06, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete after I've done some cleanup and conducted a thorough search for reliable sources. This is a short-lived company that held the licenses of two radio stations for a few years. It would make a good paragraph in an Ed Skutnik article but that link redirects to the company article, leaving no obvious merge target. - Dravecky (talk) 02:56, 17 November 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 00:02, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Mangoe. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 01:21, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to WRSI#History - Considering the company only owned two stations in small Massachusetts towns, it's not surprising there are few sources. However, Google Books found one result here (last result at the bottom) and here (first result at the top) both directories for WIZZ. My own search provided this brief mention and this 1996 news article (the relevant section is at the far bottom) announcing the purchase of WRSI and WIZZ by another company but if you notice, it's a duplicate of the article's current reference. Radio stations rarely receive attention regarding their history much less sometimes for their parent company (the exception is a large corporation like CBS or Clear Channel). SwisterTwister talk 08:09, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Redirect (NAC) Rotten regard Softnow 00:22, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Halcyon Tour[edit]

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

I don't believe that this is notable per WP:NCONCERT. Two reviews of individual shows are provided, but they don't discuss the tour as such. Besides, there doesn't seem to be anything particularly notable about it--just another promotion tour for an album. Mindy Dirt (talk) 01:07, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:03, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:03, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - We should note that the tour is continuing and only began three weeks ago so coverage may grow as time goes. SwisterTwister talk 03:26, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, KTC (talk) 00:02, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Ellie Goulding, like her first tour does. I found an MTV article on the Halcyon Tour but that's about it. It's quite possible that more coverage will emerge in the next couple months, but for now I'm not convinced there's enough to support an individual article at this time. Gongshow ^Talk 06:12, 13 November 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 November 13. Snotbot t • c » 16:50, 13 November 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 Huntley 00:02, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Ellie Goulding. It doesn't seem to be notable enough for it's own article at the moment. However I agree that it may be notable as the tour goes on, so a redirect can be easily changed back if needed. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 00:14, 27 November 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. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:52, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Jamil Zainasheff[edit]

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

fails WP:BIO and WP:AUTHOR. yes he wrote a book on brewing. that in itself doesn't guarantee notability. this is merely confirmed mainly in one line mentions. [27]. LibStar (talk) 05:45, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 17:53, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 17:53, 31 October 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, Mark Arsten (talk) 15:05, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 00:08, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. I don't think this person quite meets the criteria for WP:N. Several accolades and authoring two books is not enough. --Hmich176 (talk) 11:40, 13 November 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 November 13. Snotbot t • c » 16:53, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I believe this article should not be deleted. Three reasons why Zainasheff is a notable figure in the beer and food world:

1. Mr. Zainasheff's book, Brewing Classic Styles, is the de facto "bible" for brewing the beer styles used in American brewing competitions, and by the American Homebrewers Association. These styles are the industry standard for classifying and describing American beer. 2. His work as an educator, journalist and judge has been instrumental in the growth of home brewing in the United States, and in the explosion of craft beer brewing (more breweries in the United States than any time since Prohibition). Craft beer is part of the larger movement toward local and artisanal food production. See also Slow Food. 3. His yeast pitching rate calculator at mrmalty.com is a standard reference in the home brewing community. I suppose sources are needed for all of the above? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.231.21.208 (talk) 21:29, 17 November 2012 (UTC) — 69.231.21.208 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [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 Huntley 00:01, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete I found some mentions of him at Google News Archive, and it does appear he is thought well of in the brewing world, but these are passing mentions, not the significant coverage from multiple reliable sources that is needed to meet the notability criteria here. Google Books finds two books he co-authored, but no reviews or other indications of their significance. If sources can be found for the assertions by User:69.231.21.208, I will gladly reconsider. (BTW I note that "Brewing Classic Styles" was written in 2007 so it can't have been influential in developing the craft brewing movement; and according to the introduction to that book, it provides "a specific recipe for every style in the Beer Judge Certification Program Style Guidelines;"[28] in other words the book is based on the guidelines, not the other way around.) --MelanieN (talk) 04:31, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. I went looking again for book reviews but couldn't find any. This is a discussion board, not a Reliable Source, but I notice that these home brewing afficianados discuss Brewing Classic Styles as simply one among many beer brewing books - not exactly their "bible". --MelanieN (talk) 18:05, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus . Beeblebrox (talk) 22:49, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Little Princess (Ian McNabb single)[edit]

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

Fails WP:NSONG.CaptainScreebo ^Parley! 19:50, 28 October 2012 (UTC) CaptainScreebo ^Parley! 19:50, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

just to clarify, one of the external sources is an independant review from a trusted source, it is just hosted on the fan forum as the original file is now defunct. thanks for your understanding — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jonie148 (talk • contribs) 11:18, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 20:54, 30 October 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 02:40, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or Merge to Ian McNabb or a new Ian McNabb discography article. Deleting all these articles Ian McNabb articles isn't going to improve the encyclopedia. He's clearly a notable artist, and we should preserve encyclopedic content. A separate discography article with more detail than is currently in the McNabb article might be the way to go. --Michig (talk) 07:11, 5 November 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 00:18, 13 November 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 November 13. Snotbot t • c » 17:00, 13 November 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 Huntley 00:01, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. If anybody wants to create a redirect to discography with the correct disambiguation, then so be it. --Richhoncho (talk) 14:15, 25 November 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. Yunshui 雲‍水 11:45, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Mayra Arduini[edit]

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

Fails WP:MUSICBIO notability guidelines after good faith search. Merge into a "College 11" article may be appropriate, but the band may not meet GNG either (only has one Disney album). czar · · 06:50, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 18:03, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 18:03, 31 October 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, Mark Arsten (talk) 14:58, 5 November 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 00:11, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No significant coverage in reliable sources, not notable. -- Wikipedical (talk) 07:54, 13 November 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 November 13. Snotbot t • c » 17:03, 13 November 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 Huntley 00:00, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable per WP:MUSICBIO or the WP:GNG. I don't think that merging it into College 11 (especially given that it's been deleted per A7) would be worthwhile. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 00:07, 27 November 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) Go Phightins! 23:06, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

R. Chandrasekhar[edit]

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

The above person does not meet the criteria for wiki article.speedy deletion should be done Harishrawat11 (talk) 01:36, 5 November 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 November 5. Snotbot t • c » 01:58, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:12, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:12, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Appears to be a very notable subject as seen from tons of results from reputed sources, especially newspapers, in Google news. Secret of success · talk 14:23, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, KTC (talk) 00:03, 13 November 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 November 13. Snotbot t • c » 17:09, 13 November 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 Huntley 00:00, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - he's referred to in a reliable source as the "Telecom Secretary". Bearian (talk) 22:24, 20 November 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.