< 12 April	14 April >

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. With no prejudice against a rename discussion. J04n(talk page) 00:22, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Uganda space program[edit]

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

It is evident that Uganda, in fact, does not actually have a space program or, apparently, any prospect of one. Sending delegates to UN meetings is not enough to support the existence of the article, nor is the signing of treaties. This is an article about something that does not exist. Philafrenzy (talk) 23:22, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:19, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:19, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:20, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Uganda indeed lacks a national space agency governmental department; it does, however, like every other modern country, have a number of government programs appertaining to space applications and policy. This article was originally intended to be a test-case for articles on the space programs of less developed countries, which, even though they don't launch their own rockets or satellites, still have significant governmental involvement in this field. This is reflected in the "expanded title" in the article intro, Uganda space programs and policy. I do think that the term "space program" can reasonably stand for the several space-related efforts of a government spread among different departments (as even UK and Japanese programs were not bureaucratically consolidated until recently), but another name for this article-type is also possible.--Pharos (talk) 04:12, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I've been considering it, and I think that perhaps a good replacement name might be Uganda space policy and projects, if that works.--Pharos (talk) 13:35, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and possibly rename (Space exploration in Uganda, Ugandan space policy and exploration). This is well cited. They have had a few goes at a space program, and getting onto the times 100 list for bad ideas is nice. Then there is the guy building a space plane in his mothers back yard. The key fact in the article is that Uganda is equatorial, which makes it ideal for launching rockets into space. Martin451 (talk) 05:09, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable topic. See Museveni to take Uganda to the moon for example. Warden (talk) 09:45, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It is well referenced, so well referenced that one suspects it is a carefully constructed spoof. The content and references all relate to possibles, maybes and joke activities like Amin's "training" programme and someone building a rocket in their back yard. I am planning to build a vehicle to break the land speed record using an old skateboard I found, can I go in that article? It is not enough that they are on the equator, a lot of countries are, the fact remains that they do not have a space programme and it seems there is almost no actual space-related activity going on in the country. This article is a facade in front of an empty lot. Philafrenzy (talk) 09:55, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply. It's a facade that's gotten noticed. When you get the UN, BBC and CNN to do the same for you, then you can have Philafrenzy's attempt to win the Darwin Award. Clarityfiend (talk) 20:26, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - Reply. Thank you for the encouragement. I will add go-fast stripes to the skateboard and alert the international media. Philafrenzy (talk) 21:04, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rename per Martin. The citations are enough to support notability, but I agree that the title as it stands is poor. Ducknish (talk) 18:49, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Rename: the current name implies something that doesn't exist. Praemonitus (talk) 20:21, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rename Ugandan space initiatives. Clarityfiend (talk) 20:26, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, possibly move; see WP:ODD. Bearian (talk) 19:27, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. J04n(talk page) 00:25, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

List of Big Brother housemates[edit]

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

Only a fraction of all housemates are listed (unless they only chose people with names starting with A and B, which is unlikely), and the list is unmaintained and unsourced. BurritoBazooka (talk) 22:50, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete List not touched since mid-2008, simply not needed as every national article covers each iteration of the show much better. Nate • (chatter) 22:59, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:17, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:17, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as absolute crap, not to mention it's not a FULL list. —→Davey2010→Talk to me!→ 23:32, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. J04n(talk page) 00:29, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Solvability of a 3x3x3 Rubik's Cube State[edit]

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

appears to be a how to guide. see WP:NOTHOWTOGUIDE Barney the barney barney (talk) 22:23, 13 April 2013 (UTC) Barney the barney barney (talk) 22:23, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:14, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Some small part of this might be usable in the main Rubik's Cube article, but the rest is a pure how-to guide that doesn't fit here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BennyHillbilly (talk • contribs) 09:05, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WP:NOTHOWTO. I'm surprised this even had to go to AFD, I feel like it could have been killed through PROD. It's a clear guide that has no purpose here. Ducknish (talk) 18:50, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Improve. Please, help improve the article rather than deleting it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arjun sunel (talk • contribs) 08:56, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Put it on instructables.com, or let people read the pamphlet that comes with the product. Ignatz mice•talk 16:19, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Clearly a guide, this is not the right place for this. — Joaquin008 ^(talk) 09:42, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Animorphs. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 11:41, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Chee[edit]

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

One of many articles on non-notable Animorphs characters, no scholarly references to be found. Puffin ^{Let's talk!} 16:32, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Cameron11598 (Converse) 21:37, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:24, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:25, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:25, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 22:18, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to a to-be-created List of Anamorph species per WP:ATD, trimming appropriately in the process. The fictional element may have insufficient notability for a standalone article, but I see no reason why it could not exist as an element of a larger list article. Jclemens (talk) 22:26, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Animorphs, no indication that this is notable. J04n(talk page) 00:33, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Animorphs. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 11:41, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Gedd[edit]

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

One of many articles on non-notable Animorphs characters, no scholarly references to be found. Puffin ^{Let's talk!} 16:31, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Cameron11598 (Converse) 21:38, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:23, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:24, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:24, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 22:17, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to a to-be-created List of Anamorph species per WP:ATD, trimming appropriately in the process. The fictional element may have insufficient notability for a standalone article, but I see no reason why it could not exist as an element of a larger list article. Jclemens (talk) 22:26, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Animorphs, no indication that this is notable. J04n(talk page) 00:35, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Animorphs. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 11:40, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Helmacron[edit]

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

One of many articles on non-notable Animorphs characters, no scholarly references to be found. Puffin ^{Let's talk!} 16:30, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Cameron11598 (Converse) 21:38, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:22, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:22, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:23, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 22:16, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to a to-be-created List of Anamorph species per WP:ATD, trimming appropriately in the process. The fictional element may have insufficient notability for a standalone article, but I see no reason why it could not exist as an element of a larger list article. Jclemens (talk) 22:25, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Animorphs, no indication that this is notable. J04n(talk page) 00:36, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Animorphs. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 11:40, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Howler (Animorphs)[edit]

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

One of many articles on non-notable Animorphs characters, no scholarly references to be found. Puffin ^{Let's talk!} 16:30, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Cameron11598 (Converse) 21:39, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:59, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:59, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:59, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 22:16, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to a to-be-created List of Anamorph species per WP:ATD, trimming appropriately in the process. The fictional element may have insufficient notability for a standalone article, but I see no reason why it could not exist as an element of a larger list article. Jclemens (talk) 22:25, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Animorphs, no indication that this is notable. J04n(talk page) 00:37, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Animorphs. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 11:40, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ketran[edit]

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

One of many articles on non-notable Animorphs characters, no scholarly references to be found. Puffin ^{Let's talk!} 16:29, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:58, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:58, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:58, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 22:15, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to a to-be-created List of Anamorph species per WP:ATD, trimming appropriately in the process. The fictional element may have insufficient notability for a standalone article, but I see no reason why it could not exist as an element of a larger list article. Jclemens (talk) 22:35, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Animorphs, no indication that this is notable. J04n(talk page) 00:38, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Animorphs. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 11:39, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Lerdethak[edit]

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

One of many articles on non-notable Animorphs characters, no scholarly references to be found. Puffin ^{Let's talk!} 16:28, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:57, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:57, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:57, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 22:14, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to a to-be-created List of Anamorph species per WP:ATD, trimming appropriately in the process. The fictional element may have insufficient notability for a standalone article, but I see no reason why it could not exist as an element of a larger list article. Jclemens (talk) 22:36, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Animorphs, no indication that this is notable. J04n(talk page) 00:57, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Animorphs. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 11:39, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nartec[edit]

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

One of many articles on non-notable Animorphs characters, no scholarly references to be found. Puffin ^{Let's talk!} 16:27, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:56, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:56, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:56, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 22:13, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to a to-be-created List of Anamorph species per WP:ATD, trimming appropriately in the process. The fictional element may have insufficient notability for a standalone article, but I see no reason why it could not exist as an element of a larger list article. Jclemens (talk) 22:36, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Animorphs, no indication that this is notable. J04n(talk page) 01:00, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Animorphs. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 11:39, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Leeran[edit]

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

One of many articles on non-notable Animorphs characters, no scholarly references to be found. Puffin ^{Let's talk!} 16:29, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2013 April 5. Snotbot t • c » 17:51, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:29, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:30, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:30, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 22:12, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to a to-be-created List of Anamorph species per WP:ATD, trimming appropriately in the process. The fictional element may have insufficient notability for a standalone article, but I see no reason why it could not exist as an element of a larger list article. Jclemens (talk) 22:34, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Animorphs, no indication that this is notable. J04n(talk page) 01:01, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Animorphs. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 11:39, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Arn (Animorphs)[edit]

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

One of many articles on non-notable Animorphs characters, no scholarly references to be found. Puffin ^{Let's talk!} 16:33, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Cameron11598 (Converse) 21:35, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Cameron11598 (Converse) 21:35, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:27, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:27, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 22:11, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to a to-be-created List of Anamorph species per WP:ATD, trimming appropriately in the process. The fictional element may have insufficient notability for a standalone article, but I see no reason why it could not exist as an element of a larger list article. Jclemens (talk) 22:27, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Animorphs, no indication that this is notable. J04n(talk page) 01:04, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Animorphs. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 11:39, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Capasin[edit]

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

One of many articles on non-notable Animorphs characters, no scholarly references to be found. Puffin ^{Let's talk!} 16:32, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Cameron11598 (Converse) 21:37, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:25, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:26, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:26, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 22:10, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: the article does not satisfy WP:GNG and I doubt it ever will. I had no success trying to find suitable references: it's all fan sites and primary sources. Praemonitus (talk) 20:26, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. No significant coverage in reliable sources to establish notability. — Joaquin008 ^(talk) 13:34, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to a to-be-created List of Anamorph species per WP:ATD, trimming appropriately in the process. The fictional element may have insufficient notability for a standalone article, but I see no reason why it could not exist as an element of a larger list article. Jclemens (talk) 22:27, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Animorphs, no indication that this is notable. J04n(talk page) 01:05, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Animorphs. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 11:38, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Mercora (Animorphs)[edit]

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

One of many articles on non-notable Animorphs characters, no scholarly references to be found. Puffin ^{Let's talk!} 16:28, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:54, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:54, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:55, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 22:09, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No significant coverage in reliable sources to establish notability. — Joaquin008 ^(talk) 13:33, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to a to-be-created List of Anamorph species per WP:ATD, trimming appropriately in the process. The fictional element may have insufficient notability for a standalone article, but I see no reason why it could not exist as an element of a larger list article. Jclemens (talk) 22:37, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Animorphs, no indication that this is notable. J04n(talk page) 01:06, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Animorphs. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 11:38, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Orff (Animorphs)[edit]

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

One of many articles on Animorphs characters, no scholarly references to be found. Puffin ^{Let's talk!} 16:26, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:52, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:52, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:52, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 22:08, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to a to-be-created List of Anamorph species per WP:ATD, trimming appropriately in the process. The fictional element may have insufficient notability for a standalone article, but I see no reason why it could not exist as an element of a larger list article. Jclemens (talk) 22:37, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Animorphs, no indication that this is notable. J04n(talk page) 01:07, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Animorphs. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 11:38, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Pemalite[edit]

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

One of many articles on Animorphs characters, no scholarly references to be found. Puffin ^{Let's talk!} 16:26, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:50, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:50, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:50, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 22:07, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to a to-be-created List of Anamorph species per WP:ATD, trimming appropriately in the process. The fictional element may have insufficient notability for a standalone article, but I see no reason why it could not exist as an element of a larger list article. Jclemens (talk) 22:42, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Animorphs, no indication that this is notable. J04n(talk page) 01:08, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Animorphs. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 11:38, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Skrit Na[edit]

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

One of many articles on Animorphs characters, no scholarly references to be found. Puffin ^{Let's talk!} 16:26, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:48, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:48, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:48, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 22:06, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to a to-be-created List of Anamorph species per WP:ATD, trimming appropriately in the process. The fictional element may have insufficient notability for a standalone article, but I see no reason why it could not exist as an element of a larger list article. Jclemens (talk) 22:46, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Animorphs, no indication that this is notable. J04n(talk page) 01:09, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 11:37, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Taxxon[edit]

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

One of many articles on Animorphs characters, no scholarly references to be found. Puffin ^{Let's talk!} 16:25, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:46, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:46, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:46, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 22:05, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose: I can understand getting rid of the other Animorphs alien species, but in my opinion, the Taxxon is just as important as the Yeerk, Andalite, and Hork-Bajir. Heck, those are the four main alien species in this series. dogman15 (talk) 23:01, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to a to-be-created List of Anamorph species per WP:ATD, trimming appropriately in the process. The fictional element may have insufficient notability for a standalone article, but I see no reason why it could not exist as an element of a larger list article. Jclemens (talk) 22:46, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Animorphs, no indication that this is notable. J04n(talk page) 01:10, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. with the exception of Hilazyev and Kharchenko. J04n(talk page) 20:23, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Andriy Yakovenko[edit]

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

Fails WP:NFOOTBALL Alex (talk) 22:00, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages:

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:37, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:37, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:37, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Keep all of them. I may be wrong on this, but I would think since they are all part of professional high-tier teams, they would meet WP:NFOOTBALL. Ducknish (talk) 18:53, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- No one of them are part of professional high-tier team. They were only at reserve teams and they did not played matches in any professional leagues. Alex (talk) 19:26, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - Ducknish, that is incorrect. Being part of a professional high-tier team is one thing, but in order to meet WP:NFOOTBALL, a player has to appear in a fully pro league match, a competitive cup match (which in Ukraine would be the Ukrainian Cup) or internationally for the senior national team. – Michael (talk) 00:43, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all - neither of them meet WP:GNG or WP:NFOOTBALL. – Michael (talk) 00:45, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Hilazyev - I added a link which shows he played more than 250 matches in Ukraine's professional leagues. I don't think the nominator followed WP:BEFORE and all of these nominations are in question. Jogurney (talk) 13:31, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Kharchenko - this player made over 350 appearances in Ukraine's professional leagues. I added the link to the FFU website, but the infobox needs fixing. Jogurney (talk) 13:42, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the rest - I checked the others, and only Ryabyi appears to have even played in the Ukrainian third division. None will pass NFOOTBALL, and I can't see them passing the GNG either. Jogurney (talk) 14:36, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Hilazyev and Kharchenko, delete the rest per Jogurney's excellent research. Giant Snowman 20:12, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all they do not meet notability guidelines for football players.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:00, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Hilazyev and Kharchenko, delete the rest per Jogurney and GS. Miniapolis 14:47, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to George Washington University. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 11:33, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

GW Today[edit]

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

George Washington University's internal newsletter. Completely non-notable publication. Fails WP:GNG. GrapedApe (talk) 12:19, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:11, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington, D.C.-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:12, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:12, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This should not be deleted as it is a plausible redirect to George Washington University. James500 (talk) 13:28, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- So, you !vote redirect?--GrapedApe (talk) 23:33, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yes. James500 (talk) 16:19, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This from the GWU page: "There are three major news sources on campus: the twice-weekly newspaper The GW Hatchet, The GW Patriot, which publishes articles online daily and in a monthly newsmagazine, and the online-only radio station, WRGW." No mention of GW Today, no references to the website (gwtoday.gw.edu) in the references. However, the web page itself is pretty detailed.Listmeister (talk) 21:36, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- So, it would seem that GW Today isn't even notable within the context of GWU's on-campus news sources, much less within the context of the world.--GrapedApe (talk) 17:05, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 21:58, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No independent sources have been provided. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 05:29, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 11:33, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

List of UK Rock Chart number-one singles of 2013[edit]

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

Largely based on data from Official Charts Company data, over which they assert Database right: Wikipedia:Bot_requests#Chartarchive.org, AFD is because of potential copyvio. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 10:11, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:31, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:31, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:31, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 21:57, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep in light of discussion in related AFD by same nominator here; there is no actual copyright concern here, and the nominator wants these withdrawn. postdlf (talk) 18:56, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 11:32, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

List of UK Rock Chart number-one albums of 2009[edit]

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

Largely based on Official Charts Company data, over which they assert Database right Wikipedia:Bot_requests#Chartarchive.org, AFD as potential copyvio. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 10:13, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:32, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:33, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:33, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Surely this is exactly the sort of thing there should be on Wikipedia, or am I missing something?Sophiahounslow (talk) 11:02, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 21:55, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep in light of discussion in related AFD by same nominator here; there is no actual copyright concern here, and the nominator wants these withdrawn. postdlf (talk) 18:56, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 11:32, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

List of UK Rock Chart number-one singles of 2012[edit]

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

Article is laregley based on data derived from www.officialcharts.com which has claimed it asserts database right- See: Wikipedia:Bot_requests#Chartarchive.org. Without an epxlicit OTRS permission from OCC I would consider this article to thus be a potential copyright violation.

Sfan00 IMG (talk) 10:06, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Other lists nominator has found raising the same issue (not yet nominated for deletion)
List_of_UK Indie_Chart number-one singles of 2013 List of UK Indie Chart number-one albums of 2009 List of UK Indie Chart number-one albums of 2010 List of UK Indie Chart number-one albums of 2011 List of UK Indie Chart number-one albums of 2012 List of UK Indie Chart number-one albums of 2013 List of UK Indie Breakers Chart number-one albums from the 2010s UK R&B Chart records and statistics List of UK R&B Chart number-one singles of 2010 List of UK R&B Chart number-one singles of 2011 List of UK R&B Chart number-one singles of 2012 List of UK R&B Chart number-one singles of 2013 List of UK R&B Chart number-one albums of 2011 List of UK R&B Chart number-one albums of 2012 List of UK R&B Chart number-one albums of 2013 List of UK Dance Chart number-one singles of 2010 List of UK Dance Chart number-one singles of 2011 List of UK Dance Chart number-one singles of 2012 List of UK Dance Chart number-one singles of 2013 List of UK Dance Chart number-one albums of 2009 List of UK Dance Chart number-one albums of 2010 List of UK Dance Chart number-one albums of 2011 List of UK Dance Chart number-one albums of 2012 List of UK Dance Chart number-one albums of 2013 List of 1980s UK Albums Chart number ones List of 1990s UK Albums Chart number ones List of Specialist Classical Albums Chart number ones from the 2010s List of UK Compilation Chart number-one albums from the 2010s List of 1Xtra Chart number-one singles from the 2010s Official Streaming Chart Official Record Store Chart Official Classical Singles Chart Official Christian & Gospel Albums Chart List of Official Subscription Plays Chart number-one songs from the 2010s List of UK Official Download Chart number-one singles from the 2010s List of UK Official Download Chart number-one albums from the 2010s List of Classical Artist Albums Chart number ones from the 2010s List of Classical Compilation Albums Chart number ones from the 2010s List of one-hit wonders on the UK Albums Chart List of Top Pops number-one singles List of artists by number of UK Albums Chart number ones List of artists who reached number one on the UK Singles Chart

Other lists nominator has found raising the same issue (not yet nominated for deletion)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:29, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:29, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:29, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 21:54, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep in light of discussion in related AFD by same nominator here; there is no actual copyright concern here, and the nominator wants these withdrawn. postdlf (talk) 18:56, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. WP:NPASR. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 11:30, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

E.W. Beth Dissertation Prize[edit]

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

Unremarkable prize. No assertion of notability, merely a set of references that show it exists. Biker Biker (talk) 22:14, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Biker Biker. I'm a computer scientist (not one of the winners nor one of the organizers of the award) and I believe this is one of the most prestigious prizes for a PhD thesis around the topics of Logic and formal Languages. At least in Europe. If you think this is not the case, please feel free to remove this page. Best wishes. Garetjax3891 (talk) 11:48, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:36, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mediran (t • c) 00:10, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 21:54, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Well over a decade's track record, large Google footprint, and substantial published coverage, including this in Dependency Structures and Lexicalized Grammars: An Algebraic Approach, edited by Marco Kuhlmann, make this a GNG pass. Carrite (talk) 00:35, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - That source isn't independent: it is the book form of a dissertation that won this award, published as part of a series created by the organization that awarded it. I'm not sure what role Springer has in the publication; it may only be printing the books. RockMagnetist (talk) 17:47, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - As far as I can tell, the large Google footprint is from sites maintained by the Association for Logic, Language and Information, its European Summer School in Logic, Language and Information or calls for submissions (which are basically ads). RockMagnetist (talk) 17:54, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - the only recipient who is the subject of a Wikipedia article is Nir Friedman. RockMagnetist (talk) 21:10, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Evert Willem Beth. I would have recommended redirecting it to Association for Logic, Language and Information, but there are no independent sources for that article either (or for its products, European Summer School in Logic, Language and Information or Journal of Logic, Language and Information) so who knows how long that article will remain? For that matter, Evert Willem Beth has no references, so a mention of this prize with a link to the FoLLI website would be a first step to establishing his notability. RockMagnetist (talk) 21:10, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Note that the previous version was on a completely different subject, so the WP:PROD equivalent is still valid here. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 11:25, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Living Water[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Non-notable college a capella group. Fails WP:GNG and WP:BAND. Claim of "oldest collegiate Christian a cappella group" is specious (I can't find any sources), and also so narrow of a "first" as to be meaningless. This version is a recreation of previously deleted material. GrapedApe (talk) 04:38, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Connecticut-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:26, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:26, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:26, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mediran (t • c) 01:32, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 21:48, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as lacking coverage to pass the GNG.--Yaksar (let's chat) 08:21, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. WP:NPASR. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 11:22, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Neelima Tirumalasetti[edit]

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

Non-Notable producer who barely produced 3 films.Google search gives no more than one reliable source to justify an article TheStrike Σagle 11:42, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Panjaa, reliable sources exist (The Hindu, IndiaGlitz, Times of India, Times of India), however, she is known only for her participation of the film Panjaa. The other films are still in production. --Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 12:15, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:52, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:52, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spinning Spark 14:33, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep some of her work in production has been deemed notable enough for an article, so we cannot say she is only notable for one work.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:15, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 21:41, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. J04n(talk page) 02:09, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Egypt's Sarcasm Society[edit]

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

Unconvinced there is substantial difference from version deleted in 2012, but creator asserts that there is Boleyn (talk) 15:39, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I don't think it meets WP:NOTE, in addition to not having enough sources and secondary sources. ToastyMallows (talk) 16:15, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Egypt-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:38, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:38, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Does not prove substantial coverage in reliable independent secondary sources. Delete per Wikipedia's Sarcasm Deletion criteria. Algébrico (talk) 03:21, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I have added a lot of secondary sources for the creation of the website and the owner, and references for the mentioned information which should be enough to reconsider the credibility of this article. The Greatest Director (talk) 18:23, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for lack of any credible or sourced assertion of notability. The sources added in a recent edit are mostly the official website and a student newspaper. Someguy1221 (talk) 01:19, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I don't think this site currently meets WP:WEB. All I could find was this article [1] and a few Facebook pages. I'm a bit surprised there are not more English sources out there given its popularity, though perhaps there are some Arabic reviews out there for this Egyptian site. Then again, I suppose an Arab site with a Mexican ccTLD prefix whose primary language is English might have problems attracting commentary. Funny ^Pika! 03:44, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, I have added that as a resource, the concept of the MX domain is to make it stand for "comics" as in "comix" so the entire domain sound like ESS comics, however it's not just about the site, its about the community itself, ESS has a page on facebook with over 470k fans. it is a large platform for all Arabic comic creators, ESS is actually what brought the concept of making comics to the Arab world and it deserves to be recorded (link: http://www.facebook.com/Eg.Sarcasm.Society) The Greatest Director (talk) 06:43, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 21:39, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, I have also added a major and valuable reference, from a TED (conference) event http://www.ted.com/tedx/events/4179 The Greatest Director (talk) 04:10, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Here's another credible source from Bassem Youssef (television host) mentioning ESS https://twitter.com/DrBassemYoussef/status/153923447863508992 and an official TED (conference) tweet https://twitter.com/TEDxCairo/status/274899323517558785 The Greatest Director (talk) 05:01, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'd just like to point out that self published sources (like own website) or those with no editorial oversight (such as Twitter or Facebook) are not considered reliable sources for establishing notability. Try and find more references that meet the WP:RS criteria. Funny ^Pika! 13:19, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:GNG. Qworty (talk) 05:59, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. BennyHillbilly (talk) 09:10, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
What exactly am I missing here? or what else do I have to do in order to fulfil WP:GNG? — Preceding unsigned comment added by The Greatest Director (talk • contribs) 17:10, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It seems entirely non-notable. Ducknish (talk) 18:55, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You've got two sources, one from Bassem Youssef (television host) and the other from TED (conference).

and many other second resources articles on the web. and an interview with a TV channel (link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hU8x8K2uxwY) you can see the channel on youtube (ONtvLIVE) it's a partner channel. and their wikipedia page is ONTV_(Egypt) sir, it is entirely notable. The Greatest Director (talk) 22:25, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete twitter being a reliable source? is that sarcastic? fails WP:GNG. LibStar (talk) 06:16, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There are tons of other sources to look at, instead of saying, it fails this and that. tell me why YOU think this article should be deleted. as I have provided tons of sources and evidence and I don't know what else is missing, this article have more sources and evidence more than 9gag. and here's another one.

check the upload's channel. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IG8LND41ISI The Greatest Director (talk) 19:48, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

the quality and depth of sources do not meet WP:GNG. refer to WP:RS. my delete !vote stands. LibStar (talk) 23:52, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. I do not see a strong argument for deletion here. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 11:22, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

List of The Wire writers[edit]

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

This list is derived from List of The Wire episodes. Even if useful, it has no place for encyclopedia, especially when it violates WP:IINFO. George Ho (talk) 17:00, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:46, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:46, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you think it violates IINFO? postdlf (talk) 18:23, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It's a good list, in the sense that it has clear inclusion criteria, limited scope, notability. I see nom's point to some degree, but I certainly wouldn't call it an WP:IINFO. That would be somethink more akin to List of people who think Breaking Bad is the best show, except for maybe The Wire Roodog2k (talk) 18:37, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It's not really necessary. --StewieBaby05 (talk) 19:24, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment "Isn't necessary" isn't a valid argument for deletion. Roodog2k (talk) 19:31, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I added wikilinks to some of the names, and a lot of the writers are notable. A sortable list would be more useful if anyone has a bot to make adding one super easy. Perfectly valid list, grouping people with something in common. Did any of them win awards for writing for this show? Dream Focus 02:24, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weak redirect to List of The Wire episodes which includes the story/teleplay writers for each episode. Quite a few shows have similar titles redirected to list of episodes articles, like:

List of writers of The Simpsons goes to List of The Simpsons episodes
List of Angel writers goes to Angel (TV series)

That said, quite a few also have standalone lists, like:

I suppose I think the content is worth retaining, I'm just not sure there is great value in preserving it twice in two different lists if it already exists elsewhere. Stalwart111 02:35, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Simpsons article was never made, except as a redirect. No history to it. The other got deleted because it just had a list of names, no information about them, and the handful of people showing up to comment on it years ago said to delete it. Not relevant here. Dream Focus 02:44, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, you've successfully missed my point entirely. And I'm not sure that simply declaring someone's opinions "not relevant" is particularly collegial or conducive to consensus-building. But hey... whatever. Stalwart111 03:58, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Content is a duplicate of List of The Wire episodes --JetBlast (talk) 22:26, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I do not really understand how the nomination can claim this is "indiscriminate information" given how clearly bounded the list is. The article provides a perfectly encyclopedic mode of navigating the episodes by writer (which the format of List of The Wire episodes precludes) - if the episode list article was reformatted into one huge sortable wikitable then this article would indeed be redundant, but such a large table would have its own issues. ~ mazca ^talk 23:58, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 21:38, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Nomination fails to articulate an appropriate deletion rationale: WP:IINFO does not apply. Jclemens (talk) 22:29, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. WP:NPASR. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 11:21, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Technologie[edit]

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

Wholly unreferenced stub on an apparently non-notable album. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NALBUMS.

Allmusic.com has a track listing, but no review. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 03:15, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I initially split the Black Lab album articles out from the band page when I was readying it for GA status. Looks like it's time to merge them into a discography page. If you don't mind, I'd like to be given until after I come back from vacation this week to take care of that. Chubbles (talk) 06:41, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:50, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mediran (t • c) 02:59, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment the discography page is now up (though still needs work), and the content has been migrated. Chubbles (talk) 03:01, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 21:37, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. It appears that all the sources provided are merely trivial coverage. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 11:20, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Swords of Chaos[edit]

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

Deprodded without comment. Concern is lack of sourcing — found only name-drops at best. Sources currently in the article consist of personal sites and blogs, which are patently unreliable. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 03:37, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand, you can see the whole story of this game, written by the author here : http://web.archive.org/web/20081226103143/http://www.visi.com/~spookshow/muinet.php

You can also see it's a real game because it is still being sold today : http://www.gameport.com/bbs/swordschaos.html

Of course there's isn't much more than this, that's an old game created around 1990, nobody wrote a book on it or something like that which we could use as a primary source. Back in the day, the internet was being formed, we were still connecting with modem, 1 server at a time so it's only logical that there's isn't much around on the internet. There has to be a way to keep the article, most old video games article are just like this one. I added 2 more URL in the External Links, hopefully it will help. Let me know what we can do so that we can improve the article, thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zurd (talk • contribs) 04:08, 2 April 2013 (UTC) Zurd (talk) 04:14, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Those are not the kind of reliable sources we use. The fact that it is still exists is not in question. You'd have to have magazine/newspaper reviews of the game, for starters. If it is notable, surely someone said something about it. Notability is the issue. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 04:29, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I just thought about this, if you want a reliable source, connect to a BBS server and go play the game, you can find the release information, along with the author name and the date it was created along with each updates. It's hard to have a primary source better than this because it's right into the game, hard-coded. Which prove without a doubt that the game is real and it's not from a personal web site. Zurd (talk) 04:14, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That is not a reliable source by our standards. Again, the fact that the game exists is not in question. The source has to be independent of the game itself. Like a published review from a magazine or newspaper, for instance. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 04:30, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, so it's not notable because not enough people played it/reviewed it or talked about it and thus it does not merit it's own page : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability I'd hate to get rid of those pages as I really like those games and like the fact that's it's on wikipedia, available for all to see and they have external links which help people find the game, play it and they have screenshots, description, history, dates. That is all good information. Maybe I should just set up a blog and talk about it?! Zurd (talk) 04:53, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Good idea. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 05:14, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It is, although I'd really like to say that if the blog would not count as a reliable source that could show notability. I would also recommend that if you're interested in compiling information about older games, you might want to create a wiki on a site like Wikia about older games. It still wouldn't count as a RS, but it'd be a good alternative to Wikipedia since you could add whatever you like without fear of deletion. If you want to continue working on this entry in the hopes of it eventually gaining more notice in RS, we can always put a copy in your userspace. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:21, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Actually the idea of the blog is not that I would gain notability for the article, just the fact that I could add whatever I want without fear of being deleted. And it would be picked up by archive.org for eternity. I like wikipedia for the fact that every information is centralized here. Or I could maybe put it on Wikia, didn't know about that website before, maybe it's a better place to put the articles instead of a blog, I will have to check it more in details. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zurd (talk • contribs) 05:45, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I just saved all the text and picture for the article Swords of Chaos and Toxic Ravine on my computer, will do something with that in the near future, either a blog or on Wikia since there's nothing I can do for not deleting those wonderful articles. Zurd (talk) 05:49, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You can use http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Export to export the entire history of the article if you want that. Or since you did most of the writing, I guess that isn't necessary. I see this article has already been copy and pasted in the past to different places, including the MUDpedia [2] Dream Focus 03:23, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

weak keep I've found at least three book references to this game, though none of them says much about it. Mangoe (talk) 17:24, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 02:28, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:28, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep The mentions of it in various books(Google book search for "Swords of Chaos" "Mark Peterson" for two of them) and the rest found show it was probably notable in its time. Nothing gained by deleting it. Dream Focus 03:23, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Awesome, do I have to link to google book search for those 2 results in the External Links to gain notability for this article?

Link the books themselves. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 20:25, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Two references are now added which links to books, can we now gain notability for this article now ?Zurd (talk) 07:06, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I've enjoyed reading about old games from the early days of computers, and, facts are facts, most of the pre-Windows ones are going to be obscure. Notability proven to my satisfaction. Listmeister (talk) 13:33, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Awesome, can I delete the "deletion notice" and the 2 other notices? Zurd (talk) 07:57, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No, leave it all up until an admin closes the discussion. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 18:35, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. I don't know. There have been three votes for keep and some attempts to source the article, but I'm not quite convinced that passing mentions in dated publications is sufficient. MezzoMezzo (talk) 07:20, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 21:36, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Independent notability is not established. BBS Door games suffer from a lack of reliable secondary sourcing (early Flash games have similar troubles), and the effort to preserve their memory through WP is sometimes at odds with making an encyclopedia. But while the games tend to lack notability individually, they would have notability as a group. I've suggested a single "BBS Door games" (alternatively, a list) for elaborating on the era using the reliable sources that do exist. As for SoC, Ref1 and Ref4 are unreliable sources. Ref2 and Ref3 are passing mentions—not even an attempt to establish notability, and can't be the basis of a Keep argument. The sourcing isn't here, and I have yet to see an older, definitive print source on this topic that could apply here. czar · · 02:28, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 11:18, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Augusto Marietti[edit]

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

This person is relatively unknown, non-public figure, the article is also poorly sourced maju (talk) 01:41, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete From what I can tell the article offers very little that isn't already in the Mashape article. Otherwise a merger might be in place, but whatever notability this guy has seems to only relate to the company. The article from the company needs a lot of work too though as it doesn't look like it meets WP:NPOV at the moment. Hst20 (talk) 22:15, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:20, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:20, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:20, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J04n(talk page) 20:15, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Non-notable as an individual, and the company article doesn't really need any of the information in here. Ducknish (talk) 18:56, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; subject has received multiple mentions in non-primary reliable sources, however non appear to be significant coverage; therefore the subject does not pass WP:GNG or WP:ANYBIO.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 19:57, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. There is disagreement on whether the sources provided are substantial enough. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 11:18, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

1channel.ch[edit]

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

This movie piracy website has no coverage in the article and I found none. SL93 (talk) 01:24, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A deep search across the Internet found numerous reliable, independent sources under its former name of LetMeWatchThis generally, thus meeting WP:WEBCRIT:

"Watch Movies Online for Free? Let Me Watch This Legally". Muncie Free Press.

"Let Me Watch This Online, Consumers Want to Watch Free Movies Online Legally and Safely". Muncie Free Press.

"Watching free online movies can be costly". Dayton Business Journal.

"The MPAA lists 10 most popular sites downloaded". Clubic.

"With TV Shows On The Web, Who Needs a Television". The Record.

Because of these reliable sources, I believe that this subject is borderline notable based on the general guideline. TB randley 01:59, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Those are trivial mentions in the broader subject of the articles. SL93 (talk) 02:01, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

How about the first couple sources? TB randley 22:52, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Those are user submitted articles. SL93 (talk) 23:08, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No, they are reliable sources from an established newspaper. TB randley 00:22, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Added another source. TB randley 00:25, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:16, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, article could potentially be expanded with a good deal of secondary source referenced material. — Cirt (talk) 17:22, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- What do you mean by good deal of sources? So far - two user submitted articles and two trivial mentions. SL93 (talk) 23:09, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - So far much of the sources provided are not satisfactory (either self produced, user submitted, or trivial) which leads me to believe it fails to fulfill the general guideline requirements. Significant coverage is something that this subject seems to be lacking.-LordMaldad2000 (talk) 03:34, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J04n(talk page) 20:04, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per User:TBrandley & User:Cirt. Davey2010 Talk 20:17, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Movie2k.to was recently kept at articles for deletion with similar sourcing cited in the debate. TB randley 18:27, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. J04n(talk page) 12:41, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

List of Indian footballers to have played in European Clubs[edit]

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

PROD removed by article creator, no rationale given. No evidence of notability, and AfD consensus exists for these type of lists and AfD consensus exists for these type of lists not being inherently notable. Debojyoti (talk)

Completed incomplete nom. — Train2104 (talk • contribs) 19:48, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:44, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:44, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:45, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:45, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - if the article is kept, the title needs changing. In the English language you play "for" a football club, not "in" one, and there is no reason for "clubs" to have a capital letter.......... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:13, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - also, since when was the USA in Europe.........? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:14, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No evidence of notability and another thing, USA is not in Europe. So it's all wrong. – Michael (talk) 00:36, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 20:13, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedily deleted by User:Nick-D as a hoax. (non-admin closure) • Gene93k (talk) 03:02, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Cullum Peni[edit]

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

This page is not real, I have searched through military records and have found no such "Cullum Peni" in any Air Force death announcements, award ceremonies, local articles commending him on a military promotion, or even any , or in any local newspapers in Long Island announcing the death of a local hero. Heck, the majority of medals awarded to him do not directly correspond when shown in his portrait photograph. Also, it says that he is buried at Arlington National Cemetery, he is not. Findagrave proves it: — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cp9215 (talk • contribs) 07:59, 22 February 2013

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:02, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:02, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:02, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:02, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete Appears to be a hoax. Google News Archive finds absolutely nothing, which passes belief for a person who died in combat - a colonel no less! Nominator's research is thorough and convincing. --MelanieN (talk) 02:42, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 11:11, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Westin Casuarina (disambiguation)[edit]

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

No need for a redirect to a disambiguation page because there is no other Westin Casuarina other then the one in Las Vegas. The Westin Casuarina in the Cayman Island does not have an article here on Wikipedia. TheGoofyGolfer (talk) 19:18, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep I've now created the article on the other Westin Casuarina. Toohool (talk) 20:46, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep For many reasons: 1) This AfD is for a redirect with the (disambiguation) identifier that correctly points to a disambiguation page, not the actual disambiguation page. 2) Redirects are cheap. 3) Per Toohool, both articles now exist, so the reason given to delete the disambiguation page is now not true. 4) Per WP:TWODABS a disambiguation page should exist, as neither of the links on the page are the primary topic for this name. -Niceguyedc ^{Go Huskies!} 21:37, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:00, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per those above. There's nothing wrong with having the disamb page. Ducknish (talk) 18:58, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep both the redirect and the dab page - which I've tidied up into standard dab page format. PamD 14:20, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. J04n(talk page) 12:44, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Crust tsunami[edit]

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

I propose to delete this article because it cannot possibly be attributed to reliable sources, including neologisms, original theories and conclusions as it says in Wikipedia:Deletion policy. Dentren | ^Talk 18:36, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2013 April 13. Snotbot t • c » 18:44, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:48, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete with possibility of recreation if reliable sources are found. This looks like an article based upon one TV programme aimed at the masses, with visual effects more important than real science.Martin451 (talk) 05:25, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Original research. --Waka Waka (talk) 21:12, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. J04n(talk page) 12:48, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dhyanyogi Omdasji[edit]

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

Based on the content of the article, the subject does not appear to meet notability criteria. At the moment this article is sourced only to self-published and/or otherwise unreliable sources, and I'm finding nothing in terms of reliable sources about him. Also a very convoluted article whose writing style is more like a "fan page" for the guru than an encyclopedia article. Kinu ^t/_c 18:35, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:58, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:58, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:58, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Why wasn't this prodded first? Xxanthippe (talk) 02:18, 14 April 2013 (UTC).[reply]

Dhyanyogi Omdasji has got his sound meditation patented.. it has been patented by United States Copyright Office (Divine Omdasji Sound Meditation - SR0000398348 dated 2006-09-13) can this be termed as a reliable source ? Also Dhyanyogi Omdasji has been accredited with

certificate of honor given by the board of supervisors of the city and county of san francisco
proclamation from mayor of san franscisco
and has various journals published on sound meditation

--Saint watcher (talk) 13:09, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I don't any evidence that the subject of this article meets notability criteria for inclusion. Peacock (talk) 19:26, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't the accolades won by the guru mean anything here as a proof? --Saint watcher (talk) 15:47, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No evidence of notability. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:59, 18 April 2013 (UTC).[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. J04n(talk page) 20:42, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Pasquale Cafaro[edit]

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

Delete There is very little available on Pasquale Cafaro. He merits a mention in the List of Italian composers, which he is already listed on, but I question whether he merits an article of his own. Delete — Preceding unsigned comment added by Frgewhqwth (talk • contribs) 18:11, 13 April 2013‎ (UTC)[reply]

Comment: There seems to be an article about him on the Italian Wikipedia. Is there any usable content there that could improve this? Ducknish (talk) 19:04, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Per the GNG coverage -- just look at the coverage that turns up in gbooks, for example.--Epeefleche (talk) 23:35, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Agree: Delete. The English article is a translated copy of the Italian article. Keep him mentioned in the list of Italian composers, but remove the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DoctorHenryHowardHolmes (talk • contribs) 05:21, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Agree with Epeefleche, many references in gbooks, meets music notability criteria. Need more translation from Italian Wikipedia. ♫ Cricket02 (talk) 07:22, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – Notable composer who has an entry in The New Grove Dictionary of Opera. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 13:23, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete both. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 11:10, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hachim Mastour[edit]

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

According to TransferMarkt, he plays for Milan's youth team, so does not meet criteria of WP:ATHLETE. He is a member of the national squad but has not played in an international tournament. Contested prod. ... discospinster _talk 18:01, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related page for the same reason:

... discospinster _talk 19:14, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:55, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:55, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:55, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:56, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete both - Neither of them has played in a fully pro league or received significant coverage, meaning both article fail WP:NSPORT and WP:GNG. Sir Sputnik (talk) 05:13, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both - Fail notability guidelines. – Michael (talk) 00:21, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both per Sir Sputnik. — Joaquin008 ^(talk) 13:43, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both - fail WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 20:13, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails the notability guidelines for football players.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:26, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both – due to not playing first-team football in a notable club league or meeting WP:GNG. C 679 05:28, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete both. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 11:07, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

CNS Ayurveda Chikitsalayam & Research Center[edit]

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

Two nearly-identical articles about the same non-notable ayurvedic hospital. No independent reliable sources found. A somewhat more detailed article about the founder of the hospital, written by the same author, is currently at AfD; see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chatharu Nair. MelanieN (talk) 16:57, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the related page CNS Ayurveda Chikitsalayam, another stub article about the same clinic. --MelanieN (talk) 17:02, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. MelanieN (talk) 17:05, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. MelanieN (talk) 17:05, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete These fail WP:GNG, WP:ORG - searching reveals no evidence of notability. -- Scray (talk) 04:28, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Lack of significant coverage in reliable independent sources. Fails all notability guidelines. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 01:34, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails GNG. No assertion of notability. – Richard BB 13:22, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No significant coverage in RS. Does not meet WP:GNG or WP:ORG. Amartyabag ^TALK2ME 05:18, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep. Nomination withdrawn with no supporters of deletion. (non-admin closure) Ducknish (talk) 19:07, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

T-raperzy znad Wisły[edit]

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

Couldn't find evidence of meeting WP:NMUSIC or WP:GNG Boleyn (talk) 16:44, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:50, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:50, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Snow Keep, lazy nom. The Polish version of the article shows that this group ranked Polish TOP 10 several times (the references come from ZPAV, aka the Polish Society of the Phonographic Industry) and provide some reliable sources (eg. [3]). A quick search in G.News shows several aticles about the band, especially this one from Wyborcza that provide some significant background informations about the group. Cavarrone (talk) 06:21, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination withdrawn sorry, my error. Thanks to Cavarrone for the great improvements made to the page. Boleyn (talk) 07:49, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Was going to say what Cavarrone said. Thanks for helping out, let's close this and move on. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 14:45, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 11:07, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Poker Night[edit]

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

The article doesn't meet notability guidelines. I couldn't find any secondary sources on this episode so it shouldn't have it's own page.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Television_episodes#Process_for_creating_articles_on_television_episodes ♦ Tentinator ♦ 06:52, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:11, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:11, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mediran (t • c) 00:33, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A series which airs on the poorly-rated MavTV in the United States doesn't need episodes to each have their own articles. Probably best to combine all the CC episodes into one nom. Nate • (chatter) 03:10, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TB randley 16:38, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. As with the other episode articles from this series, there don't seem to be reliable sources referring to the episodes individually. --GentlemanGhost (talk) 17:49, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and merge, per above. BennyHillbilly (talk) 09:15, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to SpongeBob SquarePants (season 1)#ep2a. (non-admin closure) —Theopolisme (talk) 00:59, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Bubblestand[edit]

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

All plot and no evidence notability. Very few SpongeBob episodes have individual articles, since (1) there are already short summaries in the season articles, and (2) we have a well developed SpongeBobWiki with plot summaries and more. Frietjes (talk) 15:11, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:45, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:45, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - If the author plans to make more and to supply, let it be. Eric - Contact me please. I prefer conversations started on my talk page if the subject is changed 18:31, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to SpongeBob SquarePants (season 1) along with the rest of the plot-only articles. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 21:10, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to point out to you that seeing that more than the plot section is there, it isn't a plot-only article. Why do you guys make such a big deal out of these? These don't hurt anyone. Eric - Contact me please. I prefer conversations started on my talk page if the subject is changed 22:45, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Reply - It is a plot-only article. That fact that a spurious cast section was added doesn't make any less a plot-only article. -- Whpq (talk) 18:47, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to SpongeBob SquarePants (season 1)#ep2a per above. Mediran (t • c) 01:38, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to SpongeBob SquarePants (season 1)#ep2a per above. JJ98 (Talk) 18:07, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. Unless this episode is particularly important there's no need for a separate article. Ducknish (talk) 19:11, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - No indication of notability for a stand-alone article. -- Whpq (talk) 18:47, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per above. NintendoFan (Talk, Contribs) 03:50, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. WP:SNOW The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:58, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Mozart (train)[edit]

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

I don't find this entry to meet the notability requirements listed in Wikipedia:Notability_(Railway_lines_and_stations). Entry cites one timetable and no other reliable sources. I'm Tony Ahn (talk) 14:12, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Austria-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:56, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:56, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:56, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:56, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Of course it won't meet the requirements in Wikipedia:Notability_(Railway_lines_and_stations). This is mostly because it is a not a railway line. But also because it is not a railway station. It does help somewhat if the reasons you nominate for deletion are valid. There will be lots of stuff in French/German railway magazines from the appropriate period. At worst merge into Paris-Strasbourg Line. Barney the barney barney (talk) 15:53, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The reasons I nominated it for deletion are valid (as I will demonstrate), and your sarcasm is inappropriate for an editorial discussion. You clearly did not read the guideline I posted. The subsection Wikipedia:Notability_(Railway_lines_and_stations)#Rail_transport_specific_criteria covers rolling stock. This entry does not meet those criteria. Further, the subsection Wikipedia:Notability_(Railway_lines_and_stations)#Audience states "When considering reliable sources, the audience must be considered per WP:CORPDEPTH. Evidence of attention by international or national, or at least regional, media is a strong indication of notability. On the other hand, attention solely from local media, or media of limited interest and circulation, is not an indication of notability." No evidence of ANY media has been provided, thus no evidence of notability. I'm Tony Ahn (talk) 16:03, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Tony. Thanks for your feedback. Just to clarify. Not only is this train it not a station, nor a railway line, it's not rolling stock either. That's because it's a train, like Flying Scotsman (train), or Royal Scot (train), or Speed Merchant (train), or Fleche d'Or... Barney the barney barney (talk) 16:10, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

All of those examples you give, save one, have history books as references (reliable sources). This entry in question has two self-published websites and one timetable. That doesn't meet WP:RS. WP:GNG states the subject must be the recipient of significant media coverage. I don't see that here. I'm Tony Ahn (talk) 16:20, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Tony. There will be plenty of media coverage in French railway magazines, trust me, there is quite an industry for this sort of thing. Barney the barney barney (talk) 16:25, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The burden of proof is on you to demonstrate that such media exists, as per WP:ONUS. I'm Tony Ahn (talk) 16:31, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I would also question the independent nature of a "railway magazine". What are these magazines, and who publishes them? —gorgan_almighty (talk) 01:24, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

They're usually published by independent journalists. see e.g. Rail (magazine), Railway Magazine for a couple of British examples. Barney the barney barney (talk) 11:42, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This train does not appear to be the subject of any reliable independent secondary sources, as required by the main notability guideline WP:GNG. A Google search turns up nothing but this article, YouTube videos, and a load of "TripAdvisor" type websites. These websites are all-inclusive by nature and are not independent of the subject, so are therefore unsuitable for asserting notability. Incidentally, Notability (Railway lines and stations) is an essay not a notability guideline, so it carries no weight in this discussion and it appears to be at odds with the main notability guideline WP:GNG. —gorgan_almighty (talk) 01:21, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The debate on this nomination has so far focused on two issues. The first is whether the article meets the criteria discussed in Wikipedia:Notability_(Railway_lines_and_stations). As that article makes no mention of articles about trains, the criteria discussed in that article simply don't apply. On the question as to what trains should generally be presumed to be notable, I would have thought that a train that has been given a name (such as the subject of this article) would normally qualify, and a train that has not been given a name would normally not qualify. On the question of sources, the following comments from Wikipedia:Notability#Notability requires verifiable evidence are appropriate: "Editors evaluating notability should consider not only any sources currently named in an article, but also the possibility of notability-indicating sources that are not currently named in the article. Notability requires only the existence of suitable independent, reliable sources, not their immediate citation. Wikipedia articles are not a final draft, and an article's subject can be notable if such sources exist, even if they have not been named yet. However, once an article's notability has been challenged, merely asserting that unspecified sources exist is seldom persuasive, especially if time passes and actual proof does not surface. If it is likely that significant coverage in independent sources can be found for a topic, deletion due to lack of notability is inappropriate." The EC Mozart was a named train that ran from the capital city of France to the capital city of Austria, via Germany. I have just added a "further reading" section to the article that cites three books, published in France, Germany and Austria, respectively. They all cover the topic EuroCity, and therefore can all be expected to mention the EC Mozart. The French book was written by Europe's foremost expert on post-WWII European international trains. As has already been pointed out above, the EC Mozart would also have been mentioned in independent printed magazines published in (at least) those three countries from time to time (eg La Vie du Rail (published by the publisher of the French book I have added) and Eisenbahn Kurier (similarly published by a prolific publisher of books about railways)). There would been similar coverage in Today's Railways Europe (an English language magazine edited in France and published in the UK). It is therefore clear that the article should be kept. Bahnfrend (talk) 02:50, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per comments from Bahnfrend - and also GNG and railway notability played against each other can make things confusing. EC Mozart is a notable named train - that should be sufficient. sats 03:48, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - As per Bahnfrend, pretty much. The coverage may well be offline, but it will certainly exist, and in non-railway sources as well. As for I'm Tony Am's comments, the information has to be verifiable, not verified. A route covering these major cities (let alone the fact it's not a national route, but one that goes through several countries) will blatantly be able to be verifiable. One thing I did find was: [4] Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 06:51, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The article isn't about the route, it is about the train itself. At best, this entry should be merged with an entry for the route or for the company that operates the train. I see nothing notable about the train itself. I'm Tony Ahn (talk) 07:27, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Try again, it's about both the train and the route that it travels - it's the only train that did that route at the time, so... Not only that, but the source I found discussed the route and the train. If you read the article, it's clearly about both the route and the train. As it should be, as they're basically one and the same. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 08:49, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. A train is a physical object. A route is not. They are not the same thing. The entry is Mozart (train). Adding a second train to that route would be possible, and that fact further demonstrates that a route and a train are not the same. I'm Tony Ahn (talk) 11:51, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WTF? This route was only ever served by one train. Adding a second train to the route would do jack shit in this case as the route is no longer active. A route is not the same thing as a train, but when one route is only ever covered by one train, and this one train only ever covers this one route, they ARE essentially the same thing. Ironically, you've doubled back on your own nomination statement, which said it was a non-notable route (wrong), and are now trying to claim it's a non-notable train (wrong). Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 13:14, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You're not understanding what I'm saying. I'm saying that once cannot say a train service and a route are the same thing, because multiple train services can ply the same route. You're saying A = B, and I'm saying A cannot equal B, because if another service was on the route, than C = B as well, which by syllogism means A = C, which is not true. Further, I never said it was a non-notable route. In fact I never used the word "route" in the nomination. That was your inference (wrong). I'm Tony Ahn (talk) 00:08, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) A named train is a service on a specific route, not the specific rolling stock that operates it or any other physical object, for example there were simultaneous 10am Flying Scotsman (train) departures from both Edinburgh and London for many years of it's 150-year history (during which time it has obviously been operated by many types of physical train). At its peak the Atlantic Coast Express consisted of "up to five trains departing from Waterloo in the 40 minutes before 11.00a.m.". Thryduulf (talk) 13:20, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Clarifications - pretty much all EuroCity trains are daily train pairs, ie each day there is a train bearing that name travelling from A to B and a train bearing the same name travelling from B to A. But there are exceptions, eg there are four Berlin-Warszawa-Express trains each way each day. Also, the EC Mozart was not the only train pair between Paris and Vienna as, eg, the Orient Express also travelled that route. Bahnfrend (talk) 05:49, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - major international train service of historic notability. Lack of google sources is not a strong argument - it is unlikely to be widely covered online because the Internet suffers from WP:RECENTISM. --Bermicourt (talk) 07:18, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I challenge anyone to find "significant media coverage" of this train (not the route) anywhere, online or off. A timetable is not media coverage. I'm Tony Ahn (talk) 07:27, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep' - User:Bahnfrend has referenced a few books and journals that cover the train. It is a unique, prestigious train service with 50+ years' history. ArtVandelay13 (talk) 09:30, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Sufficient references have been uncovered to establish notability for this train and/or route. I don't mind which of those we have an article on, but there is proper encyclopedic content to be written - especially about the 4-power period. Mcewan (talk) 12:17, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - article relies on three short paragraphs on a fan website, several timetables and a mention in a book about Mozart the composer. These aren't significant coverage in reliable sources, therefore the subject fails WP:GNG. We have no idea whether the 'Further reading' contains anything of significance - I would think that if it did, the author would have already referenced it in the article. Sionk (talk) 12:23, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

So basically, you've based your vote by ignoring 3 of the potentially available links? It's quite plausible that the article is mostly based off these books, with in-line refs to other things added (that's far from unheard of, after all.) Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 13:14, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm basically basing my decision on the lack of evidence of significant coverage in reliable sources. Rather than jumping on the bandwagon, as some people seem to be doing here. The article is largely unsourced, while the bit that is isn't well sourced at all. Sionk (talk) 13:47, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sionk, I would suggest that you read the extract I have quoted above from Wikipedia:Notability#Notability requires verifiable evidence, because what you are saying is not consistent with it. Bahnfrend (talk) 05:49, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – At this point it seems that the consensus is that there is enough reason to keep it, and I'm Tony Ahn is just waging a personal battle. Useddenim (talk) 12:59, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hang on a second. I don't know the article creator, so there's nothing personal about it. I'm just responding to the various opinions that others post, so that newcomers to this AfD have both sides to weigh in order to make a decision. I have not gotten "personal" (ad hominem) with anyone here. This started when the article was proposed at WP:DYK/N, and the first thing I did when reviewing is ask for a second opinion. Both of the editors that responded said it failed WP:RS, so I nominated it for AfD. I'm Tony Ahn (talk) 13:17, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

{ec))Keep, there are plenty of references to the train and its notability. The nominator's most recent objections seem to be based on a fundamental misunderstanding of what a named passenger train is (it's a service, not a physical object). Thryduulf (talk) 13:20, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notability is sufficiently verifiable, and even verified. And a named passenger train is a service; any special equipment on it is secondary. Nom seems no to have known that at the time of nomination, and didn't sufficiently look at that before nominating. A good faith error. oknazevad (talk) 14:01, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP. I am surprised at the level of rancor that a train can spawn. I don't read all the rules about these things, rather ask myself, "Self, when someone goes looking for information about this train, and given that there is such a paucity of information available about it, is that not a reason to keep the article?" I found that I answered, "Yes, it is." Einar aka Carptrash (talk) 16:27, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, no Strong Keep. It is a notable and important named train. Named trains are rare and special things, especially those that catch the public imagination. The article as it stands establishes notability. If there is a problem with the project criteria, Perhaps they could be expanded. But as a WP article I find no fault with it.--Robert EA Harvey (talk) 17:29, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Named train with sufficient coverage. Even if the "guidline" the nom reference was valid, I think their confusing "line" with "train". A railway line is an actual physical track laid and/or operated by a specific company. A train is a locomotive with railcars that operate on the line. To say a train doesn't pass Wikipedia:Notability_(Railway_lines_and_stations) is like saying "Delete Justin Beiber because he doesn't pass WP:PORNBIO." --Oakshade (talk) 06:21, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Can we delete him in RL? --Robert EA Harvey (talk) 10:25, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, but the article is relatively poorly sourced. I vote "keep" because Wikipedia's deletion guidelines only require that there be compelling evidence that a subject is notable, not that such evidence must be included in the article at present, as Bahnfrend noted above. It's a named train that ran for more than half a century, with the same name and approximately the same route, serving several major cities in three countries. Tags urging the addition of better sources and more inline citations are definitely called for, but not deletion. Regarding the sourcing: Most of the content that is cited (with inline citations) comes from two websites, both of which are questionable sources. One, www.grahnert.de, identifies itself (in German) as "the Internet pages of Marcus Grahnert". Under WP:RS, very rarely are personal websites suitable sources for WP content (thousands of WP articles use such sources, but that doesn't make it acceptable). Mr. Grahnert may be well informed, and the content on his site may be very accurate, but there's no way for Wikipedia readers to know whether it is or not. The other source, www.trains-en-voyage.com, is also worrisome, because whoever is behind it does not identify themselves. Unlike Mr. Grahnert's site, this site appears to be for a group, but nowhere on the site can I find any information as to the name of a group, or person, it represents – not even on its "contact" page (which refers to the "webmaster" without giving any name); it has no "about [this website]" page, not in any language. Look, I'm a railfan myself, but websites of individuals or of unnamed groups that (apparently) have no paid staff or elected officers are not acceptable sources for WP content, because they have no accountability. Websites of formal organizations, even railfan ones, at least have some degree of accountability for accuracy of content that they put on the web, so I consider those to be OK. If Mr. Grahnert were a widely recognized authority on the subject area, or had authored several books, e.g., then I would hold a different view of whether his website is a suitable source for Wikipedia, but I find no evidence of that. SJ Morg (talk) 07:46, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - that's what I was trying to say, but better said. Well done.--Robert EA Harvey (talk) 10:25, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

comment - did someone want popular culture? although 'popular' might be a matter of interpretation in this case (Not safe)--10:49, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
Keep Per above. Wilbysuffolk (Talk to me!) 15:45, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per User:Wilbysuffolk. —→Davey2010→Talk to me!→ 17:23, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, someone close this so the DYK nom can go ahead. I'm Tony Ahn (talk) 00:08, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Animorphs. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 11:05, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Alloran-Semitur-Corrass[edit]

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

One of many articles on non-notable Animorphs characters, no scholarly references to be found. Puffin ^{Let's talk!} 21:36, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:10, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:10, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:10, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Animorphs. J04n(talk page) 10:05, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, KTC (talk) 14:03, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Animorphs. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 11:05, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Arbron[edit]

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

One of many articles on non-notable Animorphs characters, no scholarly references to be found. Puffin ^{Let's talk!} 21:37, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:11, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:11, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:18, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Animorphs. J04n(talk page) 10:05, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, KTC (talk) 13:58, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to a to-be-created List of Animorphs characters per WP:ATD. Jclemens (talk) 22:33, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Animorphs. For now, let's just redirect it to the main article, but if/when List of Animorphs characters is created, retarget it to that. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 11:05, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Toby Hamee[edit]

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

One of many articles on non-notable Animorphs characters, no scholarly references to be found. Puffin ^{Let's talk!} 21:38, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:19, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:19, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:19, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Animorphs. J04n(talk page) 10:04, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, KTC (talk) 13:56, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to a to-be-created List of Animorphs characters per WP:ATD. Jclemens (talk) 22:32, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Anybody Killa discography#Extended plays. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 11:03, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Devilish (EP)[edit]

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

Non notable album, tagged for notability for over a year. Puffin ^{Let's talk!} 21:44, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:20, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Anybody Killa discography#Extended plays - Whpq (talk) 17:34, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, KTC (talk) 13:54, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep (non-admin closure). StringTheory11 (t • c) 17:56, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Aluminium granules[edit]

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

No content (but many headings), no references, etc. Suggest merge/Redirect to aluminium Barney the barney barney (talk) 13:54, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:51, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:51, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge: This article doesn't seem to meet any of the WP:DEL-REASON criteria and AfD is not a merge process, so this seems to be a flawed nomination. The topic appears notable and I added a reference. It's just a week old, so it needs some time for organic growth. Praemonitus (talk) 20:51, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Snow Keep - This is a valid stub article, and the topic that has received significant coverage in reliable sources; the topic easily passes WP:GNG. Source examples include, but are certainly not limited to:

Wissling, Peter (2006) Metallic Effect Pigments: Fundamentals and Applications. Vincentz Network GmbH & Co KG. pp. 14-15. ISBN 3878701713
Lollchund, M. R. (2009). International Conference on Advances in the Theory of Ironmaking and Steelmaking (ATIS 2009), December 09-11,2009. Allied Publishers. pp. 450-451. ISBN 8184245394
Neikov, Oleg D.; (et al.) (2004). Handbook of Non-Ferrous Metal Powders: Technologies and Applications. Elsevier. pp. 271-272. ISBN 0080559409

—Northamerica1000^(talk) 00:41, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep With nice improvements and added sources to the article by Northamerica1000 and an added source by Praemonitus, the topic has been shown to be the subject of multiple in-depth reliable sources and so passes notability guidelines per WP:GNG. The article is still young, but has no major problems to overcome. A notable topic and no major problems suggests keeping the article. --Mark viking (talk) 03:11, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and expand. Martin451 (talk) 05:30, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep The article was created two days after I created the stub aluminium powder. The author seems to be the CEO of a company which works in this field (Synergy Aluminium). Perhaps my action triggered his due to some sort of search service. Or maybe it's just a coincidence. Anyway, aluminium flakes, granules and powders are quite a notable topic and so this is a matter of ordinary editing, not deletion per our editing policy. The nomination does not even call for deletion and so this discussion should be speedily closed per WP:SK. Warden (talk) 10:01, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Barony of Blackhall. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 11:03, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Gillespie of Blackhall, Baron of Blackhall[edit]

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

First, this appears to be a WP:COI as it seems to be written by the subject. Second, I simply cannot see any great reason for notability. Not chief executive of a major company, holder of an OBE, which is not generally considered a high enough honour for "automatic" inclusion, and his title is not a true peerage and has never granted him a seat in the House of Lords, so not a member of a legislature either. Does not even appear in the British Who's Who. -- Necrothesp (talk) 23:08, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 23:08, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 23:08, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The article was blanked. I have restored it. I have no view on the discussion, but it should be about the article, not a blank page. --Bduke (Discussion) 13:05, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Barony of Blackhall. Not notable by press coverage or achievements. --Colapeninsula (talk) 11:38, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, KTC (talk) 13:52, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Lean towards keep: If CBE is automatic keep, then OBE must be marginal. He's in Who's Who in France. Although he appears to have bought the Barony rather than inheriting it (otherwise why hasn't the 12th Baronet inherited it?), it does make him somewhat of a curiosity. Barney the barney barney (talk) 16:06, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Barony of Blackhall#The 27th Baron, everything alreadt there. J04n(talk page) 18:23, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Merge; per WP:OUTCOMES, we tend to keep British nobility and CBEs (it's not automatic, as far as I know), but have often merged others. Bearian (talk)
- Indeed we do (and should do), but he is neither a member of the nobility nor a CBE! His "title" is not a peerage, but effectively an hereditary lordship of the manor, and he has an OBE, which we certainly don't consider automatically notable. -- Necrothesp (talk) 22:00, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - Lords are kept because at least theoretically they get a seat in the House of Lords (well most of them do), but this guy isn't that type of Lord, but another type, and he appears to have bought the title rather than in inherited the title, but he is an OBE, which makes him more Laura Trott than Victoria Pendleton. Barney the barney barney (talk) 19:13, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep. The appearance of belonging to "another Wikipedia project" (Danish-language Wikipedia?) is not a reason for deletion, let alone speedy deletion. If most or even all available published material about the subject of an article is in one or more languages other than English, this is also not a reason for deletion. And neither is the lack of material on the web about the subject of an article. The nominator would be wise to read "Reasons for deletion", and the relevant links from it, before nominating any other article for deletion. ¶ I have accelerated the close of this AfD in accordance with WP:SNOW. -- Hoary (talk) 04:44, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Kai Normann Andersen[edit]

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

No sources, the Filmography section is empty and I have a feeling that this is CSD fit because it seems to belong on another Wikipedia project. In terms of checking for sources most stuff that pops up on Google is either non-English or the one English one I did find (http://www.answers.com/topic/kai-normann-andersen ) i'm not sure meets notability requirements. MIVP - (Can I Help? ◕‿◕) (Maybe a bit of tea for thought?) 13:10, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Did you look in google books? "a prominent composer", composer of classical Danish hits, One of the most appealing personalities of our time in the light music field was Kai Normann Andersen (1900-1967), a natural musical talent . I'd go as far to say that he was one of Denmark's leading film score composers. I'll expand this later but I think its an obvious Strong keep.♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 13:17, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Denmark-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:46, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:46, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or Speedy keep. He is notable. 12 of his songs are included in the Danish Culture Canon, so they are officially "cultural excellence". Iselilja (talk) 16:14, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep -- as pointed out by Dr. Blofeld, this one isn't even close to deletable. Eminently notable Danish composer in the entertainment industry as stated clearly in the Danish Encyclopedia [5]. — CactusWriter ^(talk) 16:38, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. He is included in all the reference works on Danish film and in Dansk Biografisk Leksikon; we use print encyclopedias' coverage as a guide to notability, so this is decisive. I've added some references and some information including a little biography, and so has Iselilja. There is undoubtedly more to be found, but I believe the article now demonstrates notability. The nominator appears not to realize that neither notability nor sources need to be limited to English-speaking countries and materials. Yngvadottir (talk) 16:41, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Ridiculous to put this up for deletion.--Ipigott (talk) 16:58, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Snow Keep Passes all notability guidelines, including WP:MUSIC. Let alone a CSD or PROD nomination, this isn't worth going to AfD. hmssolent\^{Let's convene} _{My patrols} 17:30, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Dr. Blofield and his improvements to the article. His sources prove notability and the ability for the article to expand beyond a stub (which it did). Michaelzeng7 (talk) 18:50, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per others. Definitely notable. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 23:40, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 11:01, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Stacie Grossfeld[edit]

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

Reads like promotion from WP:Single purpose account. Successful in her field, but not notable. Boleyn (talk) 12:28, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Kentucky-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:43, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:44, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:44, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, regretfully. It's true that female orthopedic surgeons are rare, and I'm glad she is succeeding in her field. However, she does not meet Wikipedia's criteria for an article. WP:GNG is not satisified for lack of coverage from multiple independent reliable sources. WP:BIO is not satisfied for lack of any notable award or position. WP:SCHOLAR is close - she publishes quite a bit for a person in private practice - but her work is not heavily cited, and it leans toward presentations at meetings rather than peer-reviewed journal articles. --MelanieN (talk) 16:51, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I don't see anything in Google books or Google news, and nothing of interest on Google web. The article has a great deal of unsourced info, such as the number of surgeries done last year, something that the topic "enjoys" (according to whom?), the entire first paragraph of "Careers and education", and the entire section "Professional memberships". Only three of the "Select publications" do not say "presented", "preliminary", or "unpublished". I'll defer to MelanieN's opinion above about the meaning of the remaining three journal articles. The award is published on prnewswire, and is sourced from a site that says, "Our mission is simple: To help you promote and preserve your achievements", so fails WP:PROMOTE. This also means that the material is self-published, so it is not a WP:RS. In spite of being active in the local community, something I don't see is coverage in either Business First of Louisville or The Courier-Journal. Looking at one of the sources given in the article shows that "Honeywick" (the same handle as the author of this article) has posted five press releases in the last month at [6]. Summary: Topic fails WP:N and WP:NOT. Unscintillating (talk) 01:42, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as not yet notable. Seems like the type to eventually get some coverage, at which time the page would be appropriate. But not yet. BennyHillbilly (talk) 09:18, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Lack of any coverage that would show notability at this point. The page can be recreated if that were to change. Ducknish (talk) 19:15, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Supporters of "Delete" - I understand that you likely know more than I do about wiki policies and guidelines so if delete ends up being the consensus on this... I would very much appreciate an explanation about why other similar pages - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Chalmers_(Orthopaedic_surgeon) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scott_Spann_(surgeon) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Lehman_(surgeon) are regarded as acceptable and appropriate. Struggling to see much difference here aside from gender. Insight would be helpful. Thanks.User:Honeywick —Preceding undated comment added 21:05, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It is all explained in WP:OSE. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 01:42, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And what is lacking is explained in the links in my comment above, primarily significant coverage by multiple independent reliable sources. I'm sure she is a good surgeon, but this is an international encyclopedia, and it doesn't have an article about every good doctor in the world; they have to be a leader in their field in some way. And please don't make assumptions about gender; that may be a convenient complaint but it is not justified. I myself am female and involved in the medical field, and I would have LOVED to give a "keep" to this article, but the criteria just weren't there. --MelanieN (talk) 04:28, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I took a look at one of the articles. In addition to being a surgeon, the man holds five world swimming records, 12 patents, and founded a hospital. Admittedly, this could all be hype given that there are no inline citations and I haven't checked the references. But a claim to having five world swimming records is easily verified. In comparison, the award listed for the current topic, according to the press release which for this purpose we don't consider reliable, is given annually to 5% of 870,000 physicians. Seriously, the editors in this AfD are the sweetest most well-mannered Wikipedians I've ever seen at an AfD, not a single one has (until now) linked to WP:COI. While I suggested that getting an article in Business First would be helpful, the absolute minimum for WP:GNG is considered to be two "good" articles, and you'll find that since there aren't really any standards enforced at Wikipedia, AfD is often the result of caprice rather than reason. For example, editors tend to turn up their nose at Business First. For example, I've even seen a lengthy article in Sports Illustrated dismissed. For another example, here is an example of a world-renowned personality who wrote a book translated into 15 languages who no longer has an article on Wikipedia. Hope that helps, Unscintillating (talk) 00:32, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Lack of significant coverage in reliable independent sources. My own Google search turned up nothig promising. Fails all notability guidelines, including WP:SCHOLAR. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 01:40, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WoS also shows very average citation results for a mid-career surgeon: 28, 23, 22, 18, 2, 0, ... (h-index 4). Agricola44 (talk) 15:07, 15 April 2013 (UTC).[reply]

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

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

The result was keep per WP:SNOW. The response by the community to keep the article is overwhelming. I can't imagine any other outcome after 7 days. (non-admin closure) Michaelzeng7 (talk) 18:31, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Lion Air Flight 904[edit]

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

Fails WP:AIRCRASH and WP:GNG. Runway overruns are common.

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. ...William 10:16, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletion discussions. ...William 10:16, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. ...William 10:16, 13 April 2013 (UTC) ...William 10:16, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Psses WP:GNG, as there are plenty of sources from various places: [7][8][9][10]. Also passes AIRCRASH based on damage to the aircraft. Possibly worth coming back here later, if the coverage doesn't go beyond the next couple of days. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 11:05, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Question. If it meets the GNG then why are you nominating it for deletion on the grounds of non-notability? Thryduulf (talk) 11:08, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I assume William didn't look for sources, although admittedly some were literally published just after he nominated this. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 11:19, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It actually passes WP:AIRCRASH, since there was "hull loss or serious damage to the aircraft". Specifically, two articles indicate fuselage damage, one of which giving a quote saying it was "broken into two" and "a total loss". It passes everything in WP:GNG too. [11] [12]. Superm401 - Talk 12:31, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. As Superm401 pointed out, the WP:AIRCRASH guideline for a stand alone article is met. --FoxyOrange (talk) 13:22, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:11, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I've changed my vote, helps if I read AIRCRASH properly! Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 14:24, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, plane crashes involving a hull loss are always noteworthy. --Zerbey (talk) 14:30, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Satisfies WP:AIRCRASH. Keri (talk) 15:08, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, easily passes GNG, significant coverage in secondary sources independent of the subject, multiple sustained and significant discussion amongst hundreds of reliable sources. — Cirt (talk) 15:12, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, perhaps Speedy as this is embarrassing. - Commercial jetliners falling into the sea and breaking apart are not common and extremely rare. It is stunning that everyone survived, which makes it all the more remarkable of an incident. Of course it passes WP:GNG as coverage is extensive and it would be willful ignorance to presume there will be no thorough investigation and reports that will be scrutinized worldwide in the future. The knee-jerk nonsensical AfD of this article appears very pointy.--Oakshade (talk) 15:13, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep per above. Davey2010 Talk 15:26, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, all plane crashes with hull losses, as stated by User:Zerbey are notable. smileguy91^talk 15:28, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - hull loss. (I've seen pictures on the news.) --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 17:05, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note - It appears as a news shown in main page of NetEase news. And I believe it should be kept for planes rarely falls into sea. --222.35.186.163 (talk) 17:13, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This is a hull loss, and not everyday a plane splits in half in the water... Airplanegod (talk) 18:13, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 11:00, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Pilot (Crash Canyon)[edit]

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

The article doesn't meet notability guidelines. I couldn't find any secondary sources on this episode so it shouldn't have it's own page.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Television_episodes#Process_for_creating_articles_on_television_episodes ♦ Tentinator ♦ 06:52, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:10, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:10, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I also failed to find secondary sources for the episode. --GentlemanGhost (talk) 19:47, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 05:27, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mediran (t • c) 09:43, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Unremarkable episode, episodes shouldn't have articles unless they are uniquely notable. Ducknish (talk) 19:23, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 10:59, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Aashiqui.in[edit]

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

Non-notable recent film; "sourcing" is feeble, no assertion (credible or otherwise) of notability. This is a cast and soundtrack list, not an article. Orange Mike | Talk 01:24, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Other than the one brief review cited in the article, I can't find much else to suggest it is notable. And if the movie was as lousy as that one review makes out, then it's understandable why it's been ignored. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 03:49, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 13:48, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please read WP:Not notable. Northamerica1000^(talk) 13:02, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:00, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:00, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep an improvable article on a crappy film that is receiving more-than-trivial attention perhaps for being so bad.[13][14][15] Wikipedia is not to be only about those films that are winners. Notability depends on coverage. If a crap film meets inclusion criteria, we may have an article on that topic.Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 22:32, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I concur with Schmidt... While this Indian film's plot may not sound promising and not worth that few bucks, Wikipedia does not have articles only on winning films everybody would pay to watch. As lousy as it is, it (narrowly) meets our notability criteria. And as such, KEEP. ☯ Bonkers The Clown \(^_^)/ Nonsensical Babble ☯ 10:43, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Keep it meets the notability requirements for films, which do not include anyone having thought they were good.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:07, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 05:19, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mediran (t • c) 09:42, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - not notable. Davey2010 Talk 20:23, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please read WP:Not notable. Northamerica1000^(talk) 13:02, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Meets source requirements at Wikipedia:Notability (films), although not by a wide margin. Source examples: [16], [17], [18]. Northamerica1000^(talk) 01:46, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. WP:NPASR. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 10:59, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Kathryn Doby[edit]

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

The topic of the article is not notable enough. smt cha hal 14:13, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2013 March 23. Snotbot t • c » 14:38, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Keep her work as a choreographer seems to pass notability guidelines, even if her work as an actress/dancer was never fully notable. Even that may or may not apply to her stage apparences.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:02, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 01:48, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

delete fails WP:CREATIVE and WP:BIO. insufficient reliable sources to show depth of roles. LibStar (talk) 15:49, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Recommend keeping the article as it provides unique background information not only for subject but also for Bob Fosse. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.229.239.200 (talk) 01:42, 3 April 2013 (UTC) — 68.229.239.200 (talk • contribs) 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, Courcelles 05:22, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mediran (t • c) 09:42, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Due to low community involvement in this discussion will treat the nomination as an expired proposed deletion, with the understanding that anyone who contests the deletion may request undeletion for any reason. J04n(talk page) 21:06, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

National Power Index[edit]

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

talk page has numerous call for deletion by several editors. the reasoning being that it is a POV-pushed page. only one, primary source, and the topic is entirely based upon POV. also is very vauge about what the power ranking actually is. -- Aunva6^{talk - contribs} 03:15, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:01, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:02, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

So there aren't other sources that use or discuss this concept? If that's the case, "non-notable concept" would seem to be a succinct deletion rationale. You didn't find anything else when you followed WP:BEFORE? postdlf (talk) 18:24, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
none that discus this NPI. there does appear to be a few financial things with the same name, but for this index, the only source I can find is a single wordpress site dedicated to it. -- Aunva6^{talk - contribs} 21:27, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mediran (t • c) 09:41, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - At best, crystal ball predictions of dubious value outputted from a non-notable computer model. Carrite (talk) 19:44, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Crash Canyon. Michig (talk) 07:30, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Out-of-Pantsers[edit]

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

The article doesn't meet notability guidelines. I couldn't find any secondary sources on this episode so it shouldn't have it's own page.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Television_episodes#Process_for_creating_articles_on_television_episodes ♦ Tentinator ♦ 06:52, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:12, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:12, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mediran (t • c) 00:33, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mediran (t • c) 09:40, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Crash Canyon. Can't establish WP:NOTABILITY at the moment, but acceptable redirect. Boleyn (talk) 18:17, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) —Theopolisme (talk) 00:58, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Cawthome[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG Only 744 hits on google for the name, and none that I can see which meets WP:RS. Perhaps better as a paragraph in the ISI article? Darkness Shines (talk) 08:34, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, the notability is not judged by Google hits, and the references are reliable. Is not a reference of Google Books reliable? Even if these references are not reliable, an article cannot be deleted on this context. Faizan Al-Badri -Let's talk! 08:49, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There are other articles about the Directors of other agencies too like Alok Joshi of Research and Analysis Wing and John O. Brennan of CIA, how they do not violate WP:GNG? They ought to be nominated for deletion too. Faizan Al-Badri -Let's talk! 15:15, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as he was director-general of the Inter-Services Intelligence, that makes him de facto notable. We have articles on CIA, MI5, Mossad etc. chiefs and the ISI is the major intelligence agency of Pakistan. There will obviously be less sources on him compared to other ISI chiefs as he was among the earliest heads of the organisation and the internet didn't exist back in the 1950s. That shouldn't be a reason to delete the article. Mar4d (talk) 09:40, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Notability is judged by coverage in reliable secondary sources, GBooks has only one book which mentions this person[19] and that is already a source in the article, being the head of an intel organization does not make you defacto notable, notability is not inheirited. Darkness Shines (talk) 10:11, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Yes, being the head of a major intelligence organization DOES make you notable. He's mentioned in these places, albeit not in any detail: [20][21][22]. He's particularly notable if he's the one that actually started the organization, as he appears to be. Offline sources will almost certainly have far more on him. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 11:13, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:22, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:22, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:23, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Lukeno thanks for these references, they have been added in the article! Faizan Al-Badri -Let's talk! 05:52, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – References are solid and subject is notable. The subject played an apparently major role in the creation of a national intelligence agency, of which he also served as Director-General. Certainly passes the notability guideline. Tyrol5 [Talk] 17:45, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note to closing admin. The article creator has apparently been canvassing for votes.[23][24][25] two of which have now voted in this AFD. Darkness Shines (talk) 18:01, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

From WP:CANVASS: "In general, it is perfectly acceptable to notify other editors of ongoing discussions, provided that it is done with the intent to improve the quality of the discussion by broadening participation to more fully achieve consensus." The editor did not suggest a vote one way or the other and I did not have any prior bias or involvement with the article. Tyrol5 [Talk] 18:11, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@Darkness Shines: This article is on my watchlist and I have also edited this article before, as the revision history shows. Moreover, when this article was created, I was invited at my talk page by the article creator to help improve the article. So I've been here before you. Your discarding of my !vote as a canvassed one is not entirely valid. Mar4d (talk) 19:09, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@Darkness Shines: Yes Tyrol is right, as per WP:CANVASS, I invited the editors to give their "valuable comments" only, I did not say to vote for me, or against deletion. Faizan Al-Badri -Let's talk! 05:37, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I don't think the lack of Google hits are grounds for deletion, especially when the sources given in the article are reliable ones. That, and the intelligence services of a nuclear power were apparently the brainchild of the subject. Passes the general notability guideline without a doubt, at least from this editor's perspective. MezzoMezzo (talk) 07:01, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Full disclosure: I found this through the AfD log and nobody told me about it or asked me to comment. MezzoMezzo (talk) 07:02, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I can't understand how Google hits can be a criterion for judging an article's existence. As long as the subject-matter is important and there are reliable sources, any article has its own value. Also, notifying other editors is fully acceptable on Wikipedia.--AsceticRosé 04:33, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. A general officer, which makes him notable under WP:SOLDIER and WP:COMMONSENSE. Also founder and head of an intelligence organisation. Clear keep. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:10, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Snow keep. The leader of a national intelligence agency becomes notable by dint of being the leader of a national intelligence agency. Also clears WP:SOLDIER as a two-star general. See also WP:GHITS. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 19:12, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:SOLDIER. General officers are considered notable.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 21:34, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Generals are presumed notable per WP:SOLDIER. And the head of a major intelligence organisation should also be notable. Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:39, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable as the head of the ISI, equal to any CIA head, and as a general officer. This ridiculous nomination is only indicative of our WP:SYSTEMICBIAS. Buckshot06 (talk) 08:25, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. —Tom Morris (talk) 04:20, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Euroasia[edit]

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

Non-notable private language training company. Very spamish and created by a SPA. I could not find info about the National Business Review statement about being an "exciting" company. That statement comes form the companies own press release. In fact, all three refs are primary sources. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 05:54, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. 05:57, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Delete: Promotion based on advertising materials. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 06:27, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Seems to be a violation of WP:ADVERT. MezzoMezzo (talk) 07:23, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:13, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete--Ymblanter (talk) 08:33, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hoss (game)[edit]

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

nonnotable unsourced page of a card game, violating WP:OR, WP:HOWTO, and possibly WP:NOT and WP:SYN Curb Chain (talk) 04:52, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I was unable to find reliable sources discussing this card game. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:33, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Zero supportable assertions of notability within the article. MezzoMezzo (talk) 07:28, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:18, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 10:57, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Euchre variations[edit]

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

nonnotable unsourced page of euchre variations, violating WP:OR, WP:HOWTO, and, WP:NOT, and possibly WP:SYN Curb Chain (talk) 04:38, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Many books about card games discuss the specific topic of Euchre variations. Perhaps best known is Scarne's Encyclopedia of Card Games, but there are many others. The Chicago Tribune wrote about Euchre variations as long ago as 1877, and the fact that their writer described the game as "insufferably stupid" does not detract from notability and may actually add to it. The solution to any perceived shortcomings in this article about a notable topic is the normal editorial process, not deletion. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:04, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Cullen, could you insert said sources into the article? Doing so might help the rest of us to provide more informed responses. MezzoMezzo (talk) 07:29, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:18, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I will add sources to the article when I have time, but a "real life" day I am spending with friends from out of town will keep me away from a computer for the next 10 to 12 hours. I linked to two sources above. What is your opinion of those, MezzoMezzo? Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 15:41, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think I and anyone else concerned would be willing for a brief extension while you or anyone else attends to personal matters before the discussion is closed out. Now, I did check them out and they certainly establish that the game is real, it existed and it was known (for being stupid). While only two reliable sources seem scant, the fact that the Chicago Tribune mentions it as being famous for being so stupid could be a good argument - this obviously makes it stand out from other card games, and negative coverage is still coverage. I'm also seeing a possible mention in this source as well as passing mentions on a bunch of gambling sites. I'm not opposed to voting to keep per se, but I would like to see more feedback than just you, me and the nominee. MezzoMezzo (talk) 06:42, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

These sources discuss the existence of the GAME not the notability of the variations.Curb Chain (talk) 20:28, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The game obviously has variations and they are covered in numerous sources, as discussed by Cullen328. The worst case here is merger into the main article about Euchre. A deletion discussion is a waste of time. Warden (talk) 09:50, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Valid encyclopedic material that could do with better sourcing but I see no reason to delete. --Michig (talk) 07:42, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Per WP:BLP1E, this article should be repurposed as an article on the event and then moved to an appropriate title. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 10:56, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Junie Hoang[edit]

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

This article is a violation of WP:BLP1E. Whilst it is clear that the subject has had some small bit parts in non-mainstream movies/TV shows, there is no coverage of these parts. The only sources I can find for her is to do with her Amazon lawsuit which is over the controversy to do with her age. This is clearly WP:BLP1E territory and as such the article should be deleted. Russavia (talk) 01:50, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:08, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:08, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:09, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Create article for the event, and redirect there While the subject is not notable for anything but the lawsuit, as I can find, there is no justification to keep the article. However, I do feel that the lawsuit itself is notable in the coverage that it has received ABC, Guardian, LA Times, Backstage, NY Post, Hollywood Reporter, and others. Per WP:Event, WP:GNG, and WP:1E. -Aaron Booth (talk) 02:24, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Create article for the event and redirect there. I was originally going to vote for a merge to IMDb, but upon seeing Aaron Booth's suggestion I have been swayed. MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:37, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Her identity was the subject of several independent blind-item gossip rag mags, and she herself became notable through the events that transpired--not as an actress for her work--but as the hidden identity behind the suit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Deedbunk (talk • contribs) 05:26, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; honestly not convinced an article on the lawsuit would be suitable either, but it's a better approach than this classic one-event biography. Andrew Gray (talk) 07:18, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Regarding one-event biography, I feel like this fits with "It is not the case that the event is significant and the individual's role within it is substantial and well-documented – as in the case of John Hinckley, Jr., who shot President Ronald Reagan in 1981." This was a major battle for Amazon/IMDb, and the arguments/decision have dressed the 1st Am. in new clothes DeedBunk —Preceding undated comment added 21:52, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:BLP1E and WP:NOTNEWS. This suit isn't notable enough for its own page. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:40, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Move to Hoang v. Amazon.com. The case has gotten significant attention, not just as a matter of news, but as a point of notable discussion about privacy law and age discrimination. See, for example, [26], [27], [28], [29], [30]; therefore, WP:NOTNEWS does not apply here. Arguably, this is subject to WP:BLP1E, but that's not grounds for deleting the article; that's grounds for moving it to an article on the event. TJRC (talk) 21:56, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete on BLP1E grounds per nom and Andrew Gray. No objection to creating an article such as Hoang v. Amazon.com, if this is a notable subject. PhilKnight (talk) 22:02, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Does not meet the standards of WP:NACTOR, and the lawsuit puts her squarely into WP:BLP1E territory as she is only in the news for that. Would not be opposed to a redirect to an article on the lawsuit if that itself is deemed notable. Tarc (talk) 16:15, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. She may fail WP:ACTOR, but the lawsuit makes her famous. I don't see a BLP issue, this is just another case of Streisand effect. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:58, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Do you not see a WP:ONEEVENT issue? If the woman is only known for one thing, filling a frivolous lawsuit, then that isn't enough to justify an article. The lawsuit itself is perhaps notable, but we shouldn't have a biography of a person just for something like this. Tarc (talk) 18:01, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The very fact that people want to suppress the easy access of information on her tells me we should make it available.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:52, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
What an utterly asinine reason to keep an article, your rationale rests entirely on being spiteful towards this individual. Tarc (talk) 18:01, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm persuaded that WP:BLP1E/WP:BIO1E apply here, and there should not be an article on Hoang herself. Apart from the notable lawsuit, she's a third-tier actor, and would not merit an article but for the lawsuit. The guidance in the WP:BLP1E policy and WP:BIO1E guideline anticipate that there is already a separate article on the event into which the content should be merged, but that's not the case here. A few editors have suggested creating an article and redirecting; or deleting without prejudice to recreating. Some have suggested just deleting based on the policy or guideline without considering the notability of the event. Because an article on the event will consist of substantially the same material as the "Lawsuit against IMDb" section, we should not delete this article and re-create that material. Apart from the inefficiencies of recreating deleted work, deletion and recreation will lose the history that needs to be maintained to comply with WP:CC-BY-SA. In light of that, the page should be moved to Hoang v. Amazon.com and edited to conform to the article being about the case rather than the actor (and to avoid WP:PSEUDO issues). I've changed my position above accordingly. TJRC (talk) 19:10, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. BLP1E, no encyclopedic relevance. --Michig (talk) 07:35, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Michig (talk) 07:20, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Frank Murphy (radio)[edit]

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

Does not appear to qualify for WP:CSD#A7, so WP:REFUNDed by me. I abstain. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:35, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Tennessee-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:48, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:48, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:48, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - needs better sourcing, but I believe there's a reliable claim of notability. The original A7 deletion (which I could not see until the article was restored) was initiated by a WP:SPA account (WWright0330), so this may have also been a bad faith nomination to begin with. MikeWazowski (talk) 22:02, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I see no reason to delete this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by VoiceofTJ (talk • contribs) 00:01, 9 April 2013 (UTC) — VoiceofTJ (talk • contribs) 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, Michaelzeng7 (talk) 01:13, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It's a poorly written article with way too many subsections, but through all the aesthetically painful composition there does seem to be some established notability. MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:38, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Wizardman 15:18, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Joe Tuschak[edit]

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

Non notable minor league ballplayer. Has put up poor results in 2 years of rookie ball.. nothing special here... not enough sources to satisfy GNG... not notable even for the minor league player pages. Prod removed with no reason given. Spanneraol (talk) 01:03, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. Spanneraol (talk) 01:04, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:11, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:11, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Well of course User:Kinston eagle de-prod'd it; his "power and speed are top quality for his age"! A minor amount of coverage [31] but only in this one publication, so fails WP:GNG. The de-prod's without reasons are not helpful to the process. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:30, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There are sources, but they don't establish notability for athletes. And why is Wikipedia itself one of the sources? MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:39, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No evidence of notability. Would reconsider if evidence is provided. Rlendog (talk) 14:05, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Michig (talk) 07:24, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Millie the Miller Beach monster[edit]

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

Non-notable hoax. The sources cited, other than the page created specifically to publicize the hoax, relate only to the general history of Miller Beach and environs, or to other lake monsters. No actual reliable sources appear to exist. Cindas Ghost (talk) 00:31, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Indiana-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:10, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:10, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete An original-research piece posted on a non-notable web page, released under GDFL, and then copied verbatim to Wikipedia. - LuckyLouie (talk) 02:03, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It almost seems as though this article was written as a means of promoting the hoax. MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:41, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for many obvious reasons already mentioned by others, but especially because of MezzoMezzo's cogent observation. It's promotional. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:40, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as per all of the above. As pointed out above, almost a word-for-word copy of this "article". Someone else might like to clear this up, but even under a GDFL release, copy-paste copies are still not okay are they? Certainly WP:OR either way. Stalwart111 06:07, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Seems to be part of a concerted publicity effort. I've had to restore an Afd template that was deleted [32] and redirect a similar promotional article that was recreated against consensus [33]. Would the closing admin please salt this article title as well as "Miller Beach Arts and Creative District"? - LuckyLouie (talk) 13:29, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

DO NOT DELETE, this is a well written, cited encycolpedic article about a supposed crytopzological creature. it does not "promote" the supposed creature or "promote" a hoax. but rather gives historic background and information about the supposed creature. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Duneschilde77 (talk • contribs) 18:06, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete' per above Davey2010 Talk 20:26, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Of course it only relates to the ″general history of Miller Beach″, it is a lake-based cryptide after all, and not on par with Nessie, for example. Apart from that as per Duneschilde77, Gott 00:08, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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