< 1 August	3 August >

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 11:20, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Klinton Spilsbury[edit]

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

Non-notable entertainer. This guy appeared in a single film and nothing since. He is currently refusing to comment on pretty much everything. Lots of passing mentions, but the only article I can see with in depth coverage is this which is full of paragraphs that start like "'“Seldom has Hollywood built someone up and then thrown him aside more quickly than Klinton Spilsbury,” says Stephen Collins, who never met Spilsbury but watched from a distance...'" --- i.e. it's hearsay and rumour. The date of birth appears to be unsupported by references. Stuartyeates (talk) 23:01, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 23:19, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 23:19, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, kemo sabe. Spectacular failures who get written about 30 years later aren't a (silver) dime a dozen. Clarityfiend (talk) 01:35, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The non-notability of otherwise low-profile living people known for a single spectacular failure is covered explicitly in WP:BLP1E. Stuartyeates (talk) 01:53, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Which states "the significance of an event or individual is indicated by how persistent the coverage is in reliable sources." He is, to a lesser degree of course, akin to a Titanic survivor. Clarityfiend (talk) 03:19, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep He was the star of a major motion picture in 1981, was on cereal boxes ("Klinton Spilsbury IS The Lone Ranger!!, to which fans of Clayton Moore said WTF??!). He got significant coverage worldwide in the 1980's: Associated Press article about his work after the film was released in 1981, Knight Ridder wire service story about his work in the film 1980, Knight Ridder wire article 1985 about movie failures where he gets his paragraph. Appears to satisfy WP:BIO. See significant coverage in "The Andy Warhol Diaries, 1989, "How I Got to Be Whoever It Is I Am" By Charles Grodin, 2009 . Appears to satisfy WP:BIO, continues as a marvellous failure and a continuing trivia answer. Edison (talk) 04:10, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
merge to The Legend of the Lone Ranger There's almost no biography here; most of the material is description of the production, and the movie is his only "claim" to notability. The very few details about the rest of his life could readily be incorporated in the movie's article. Mangoe (talk) 01:54, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per BLP1E, as Clarityfiend's correctly points out; clearly (and fiendishly!) there is persistent coverage. --GRuban (talk) 02:04, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hah! Clarityfiend (talk) 22:45, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Who was that masked man!? Warden (talk) 21:00, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The sort of prominent individual BLP1E was not designed to cover. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 00:29, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Clarityfiend is right. For BLP1E situations, it all depends on the persistence of coverage. Heck, that's always the main thing discussed in AfDs for them. Do they have it or not? And this individual does, as exhibited by the sources given by others above. So he passes BLP1E for that. Silver seren^C 21:54, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep If this guy is not notable, nobody is. Still discussed decades later by lots of RS. -- cyclopia^speak! 13:12, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

People keep saying this, but I have yet to see any supplied reference which isn't using him as a synecdoche for the movie, which I is why I prefer the merger. Mangoe (talk) 14:09, 7 August 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. Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 11:19, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Jonathan Russo[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Non-notable individual lacking ghits and Gnews. Fails WP:BIO. reddogsix (talk) 22:50, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 23:18, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 23:18, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:50, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Lacks reliable independent secondary sources to establish notability as required by WP:GNG. Googling turned up nothing useful. Msnicki (talk) 06:23, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete ~~possibly CSD G4 if it resembles the previously deleted article?~~ The article is sourced only to the subject's own site and I am finding nothing better. Fails WP:MUSICBIO. AllyD (talk) 06:41, 3 August 2013 (UTC) Edit: I see a CSD G4 was declined as the article is non-identical; however I would expect it to be reasonable that a re-created previously-AfDed article should at least have one reliable 3rd party reference? AllyD (talk) 06:45, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No independent reliable sources to establish WP:N of individual. --Artene50 (talk) 01:43, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Might squeak in notability-wise, but not without third-party reliable sources. Gamaliel (talk) 19:36, 8 August 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 Threat (film). postdlf (talk) 23:58, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Kings Mob Productions[edit]

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

Page lacks citations, and I cannot find any indication of notability through search engines. What references do exist are mirrors of the article. There are few interwiki links, and the citations for those are dead. Gareth E Kegg (talk) 21:30, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 22:15, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 22:15, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect Company only had one meritable production which was a minor award winning film; deserves a mention, which it already has, at the Threat (film) article. Nothing of notable value was made by the company (yet) which would merit it an entire article to itself, especially not one which is filled with supposedly notable person lists and thus makes it read like a promotional article. Judicatus | Talk 22:27, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Threat (film) per User:Judicatus. Allow undeletion or recreation only if or when the company meets WP:CORP. SCHMIDT, ^{Michael Q.} 21:50, 3 August 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. Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 11:19, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Aaron Jack[edit]

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

This was mistakenly nominated at redirects for discussion, moving nomination here. Original user's rationale will be below. Ego White Tray (talk) 21:07, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

From Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2013 August 2#Aaron Jack: "This page is not being maintained, has broken links and the subject is no longer in elective office. BuffaloBob (talk)"

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 21:17, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Kansas-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 21:17, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep United States state legislators are notable and this article should be cleaned up and updated. Thanks-RFD (talk) 21:30, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

He's not a US legislator, he's a state one. Some state legislators are elected by as few as 7000 votes, which is completely insignificant in a country of 300 million. Ego White Tray (talk) 22:53, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I created this nomination as a purely procedural matter, but now I'm making my vote. Each seat on the Kansas House of Representatives represents only about 20,000 people. This is an utterly insignificant number, and his seat therefore does not have notability. Unless Jack attains some higher office someday, he isn't notable either. Ego White Tray (talk) 22:56, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment aside from WP:POLITICIAN already being widely accepted, the argument that 20,000 people is "utterly insignificant" is arbitrary. See WP:BIG, which explains that such arbitrary numbers are meaningless in determining Notability. For example, how many would be necessary to be significant? 50,000? 100,000? 342,678? Or 342,679? (Just ONE short of significant. Darn it!)--Paul McDonald (talk) 16:14, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. State legislators are notable per WP:POLITICIAN ("members or former members of a national, state or provincial legislature"). The deletion rationale is not valid. The fact that the subject is no longer in office is irrelevant. Notability does not expire. Keeping the page up to date is a matter for editing, not deletion. The population size of the subject's constituency is also not relevant here. • Gene93k (talk) 00:46, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Once notable, always notable. See WP:POLITICIAN. Enos733 (talk) 03:43, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep in addition to the reasons above, we normally find that state legislators pass WP:GNG.--Paul McDonald (talk) 12:30, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notability is a given, so keep and fix – and especially, elaborate on the "resign or be fired" phrase. – Paine Ellsworth ^CLIMAX! 20:29, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notable under WP:POLITICIAN as a member of a sub-national legislature. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:45, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. postdlf (talk) 23:58, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Beyoncé's Fifth Studio Album[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

WP:TOOSOON and WP:HAMMER. Previously speedy deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Beyoncé's Fifth Studio Album. GregJackP Boomer! 21:01, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 21:15, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 21:15, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and salt I haven't seen yet any album called "(Artist's) (Number) Studio Album" in all my years here. All sourced to either WP:ADVERTs or people who don't understand the 'no recording' policy at concerts. Nate • (chatter) 23:41, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and Salt - Per WP:NALBUMS, WP:CRYSTAL, WP:TOOSOON and WP:HAMMER. (Artist's) (Number) Studio Album are practically never ever appropriate. STATic message me! 12:47, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NALBUMS. Koala15 (talk) 18:34, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:HAMMER Adabow (talk) 01:49, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - all existing sources in the article are unreliable and, it's impossible to accurately search for anymore given we don't know the album's name ... which is kind of what WP:HAMMER is all about. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 10:46, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect or Merge to Beyonce Knowles. Editor Eat ma talk page up, scotty! 17:15, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly who is going to type "Beyoncé's Fifth Studio Album" into the search box? Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 17:26, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure somebody who heard Beyonce was doing a new album would. Editor Eat ma talk page up, scotty! 19:32, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In France, maybe. The rest of us don't have access to a "é" on our keyboards rather easily. Nate • (chatter) 00:13, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, on the "2013: Fitfh studio album" section of the main Beyonce Knowles article, there is an indication that reliable sources are covering the fifth album. I'mjust suggesting a redirect or more info from the reliable sources cited in the main article be included here. Editor Eat ma talk page up, scotty! 01:32, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'll suggest a Weak keep for now because of that. Editor Eat ma talk page up, scotty! 01:34, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - while the sources described in the article aren't reliable, information exists for this topic in sources generally respected as reliable, and easily found by typing in 'beyonce's next album' or 'beyonce's new album', and already listed on Beyoncé_Knowles. these include MTV, billboard, vogue and rolling stone. the topic is therefore notable. WP:NALBUMS includes a provision for the inclusion of unreleased materials that are verifiable, which, while not entirely relevant, i believe should infer that the verifiable information on this topic should justify it's inclusion under the spirit of this criteria. because the example for WP:TOOSOON refers to media specific guidelines for notability, i believe the prior justification extends to this criteria as well. this means any deletions should be justified by WP:NOT or perhaps an argument that the information is better suited to inclusion on beyoncés main page. I believe the latter argument is inappropriate because it would require a merge-unmerge process once we get a name, while keeping it in a separate, vaguely named article would ease the transition once a name is found. As for WP:NOT, the boundary between reliable source information and reliable source speculation is pretty thin, and I am making an individual decision that the extant information is the former. romnempire (talk) 18:58, 9 August 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. Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 11:18, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Itimes 5 Most Admirable Actresses[edit]

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

Non-notable competition. Brainy J ~✿~ (talk) 20:45, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 20:49, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 20:50, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The article says that this was a competition, but it is was just a non-notable poll. SL93 (talk) 23:01, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Clickbait poll of no interest to anyone except for Itimes's department hoping for some more AdSense revenue. Nate • (chatter) 23:38, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - run of the mill reader poll. -- Whpq (talk) 16:28, 7 August 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 Speedied as copyvio and A7 fail. Peridon (talk) 22:19, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Tresa McAlhaney (Antes)[edit]

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

Non-notable third party political candidate. Fails WP:GNG and WP:POLITICIAN. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:42, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:43, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Kansas-related deletion discussions. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:43, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as copyright infringement of the candidate profile page here. The article's tone and style just screamed copyvio. Tagged for speedy. • Gene93k (talk) 21:16, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I meant to tag it as promotional. I should've thought to check it against her campaign site. Good catch. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:22, 2 August 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. Moving to Bebida Beverage Company as discussed. If expansion and improvement does not occur, can be renominated as required. (non-admin closure) Steven Zhang ^{Help resolve disputes!} 09:17, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Koma Unwind[edit]

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

Failure of sources to establish notability. All sources I could find are either press releases, blogs, or extremely trivial passing blurbs. Grayfell (talk) 04:26, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. A passing mention in Business Week plus a press release - not sufficient for meeting WP:GNG. Might be merged into the company article (if it existed and if the company was notable - I have no opinion on that one way or the other). GregorB (talk) 08:11, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:29, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:29, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and rename to Bebida Beverage Company and expand to be about the company as a whole - there appears to be sufficient data out there to establish notability for the company. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:35, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm curious what you found, all I came up with was stock quotes and a huge volume of press releases. Grayfell (talk) 08:58, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and rename to Bebida Beverage Company (BeBevCo). Articles such as this establish enough notability to warrant inclusion. Candleabracadabra (talk) 14:52, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per the above arguments. The company seems notable; Koma Unwind does not. Andrew³²⁷ 15:03, 2 August 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, Michaelzeng7 (talk) 19:38, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment For the company I see very little information besides the stock references. It is a beverage company with one popular beverage. Would the NASCAR sponsorship validate it as a notable company? Judicatus | Talk 21:36, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. postdlf (talk) 00:00, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Mike Cavanaugh[edit]

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

I'm sending this here from Prod: head coach of an important college team needs a community decision . Personally, I could see it either way. DGG ( talk ) 04:44, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Comment: WP:NHOCKEY stipulates that coaches can qualify, but as if they were players. Players in college hockey fall under criterion #4, which accords presumptive notability for "Achieved preeminent honours (all-time top ten career scorer, First Team All-Star, All-American) in a lower minor league such as the Central Hockey League or the United Hockey League, in a major junior league such as those of the Canadian Hockey League, or in a major collegiate hockey league (Note: merely playing in a major junior league or major collegiate hockey is not enough to satisfy inclusion requirements)" Being an assistant coach for many years, even for a major program such as BC, isn't enough; being NCAA Coach of the Year would. Cavanaugh's notability, therefore, would solely hinge on whether he meets the GNG. Ravenswing 16:51, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 16:08, 26 July 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, Michaelzeng7 (talk) 19:37, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete Doesn't meet the GNG and I don't believe being the assistant coach of the year is quite enough.204.126.132.231 (talk) 18:50, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete - I wouldn't really call Cavanaugh's coverage "significant", and therefore I do not think the coach passes the general notability guideline. T C N7JM 18:03, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List of United States Marine Corps individual equipment#Load-bearing & packs. (non-admin closure) Michaelzeng7 (talk) 16:40, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

USMC Pack[edit]

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

There is nothing in this article to merit a stand alone article. Suggest it be merged into List of United States Marine Corps individual equipment although as it is this article is hard to read Gbawden (talk) 09:01, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:33, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:34, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 16:05, 26 July 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, Michaelzeng7 (talk) 19:36, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of United States Marine Corps individual equipment#Load-bearing & packs. This very short article has no sources whereas the suggested target does at least have a sourced reference and this action produces a useful redirect. The Whispering Wind (talk) 00:27, 3 August 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. Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 11:17, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hassan II (imam)[edit]

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

Does not cite any sources. A preliminary Google search turned up no reliable results. Creator of article has edited twice, one month ago (19 June). Only two other edits: both 1 July, both stub sorting. Seems stagnant. Could possibly userfy, improve, send through AfC, but please discuss. the one sean 03:23, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Syria-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:03, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:03, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:03, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 16:08, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Tentative keep. I found a few books at Google Books: here, there, and yonder. I don't even know enough to make a decent stub, though. Bearian (talk) 17:56, 29 July 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, Michaelzeng7 (talk) 19:35, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 19:50, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. A very poorly-written article, which doesn't make it clear that it refers to one of the Assassin rulers at Alamut - it would probably be better moved to Hassan II of Alamut. Both the detailed Turkish version and the short Latin version of this article list several sources, including (in the Latin version) this article from the Encyclopaedia Iranica. PWilkinson (talk) 16:00, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I agree. A very poorly written article, but relevant and there are suitable sources to cite. Needs clean-up. Kabirat (talk) 07:30, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, I have rewritten the article based on Bearian's sources, and the Encyclopaedia Iranica has even more on him. Clearly a notable religious figure and ruler of an independent realm. Huon (talk) 03:41, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Certainly notable, more text and references have been added now, article can be expanded further using the Encyclopedia Iranica source. FireflySixtySeven (talk) 05:44, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Changed as noted above, per WP:HEY. Bearian (talk) 15:10, 7 August 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 Judd Apatow. (non-admin closure) Steven Zhang ^{Help resolve disputes!} 09:18, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Maude Apatow[edit]

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

This actress isn't notable enough. Two minor roles and one bigger isn't enough to satisfy notability. Beerest355 Talk 19:34, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 19:49, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 19:49, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Judd Apatow. Not independently notable as an actor, but she's mentioned in her father's article. --Colapeninsula (talk) 16:23, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Judd Apatow#Personal life, and add the information of her being nominated at "Young Artist Award", per Colapeninsula's above analysis (I was saying "merge", but the YA Award nomination is the only thing that is not already included in the Judd Apatow's article). It is a bit too soon for a separate article but the stats show our readers are interested to her, so it's more reasonable give them the verifiable informations they search instead of simply delete the article. Cavarrone 09:38, 6 August 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) Michaelzeng7 (talk) 16:42, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Tommy Scott (musician)[edit]

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

Non-notable BLP, only known mainly for his musical contributions. Not enough to warrant a separate article about the musician himself, though his band may be notable. I propose delete, redirect, or merge. kikichugirl ^inquire 19:32, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nom. kikichugirl ^inquire 19:33, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. - →Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 22:25, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. - →Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 22:25, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Keep. Talk about hedging your bets - AfD is just for proposing deletion. Scott's best-known band are very obviously notable and he received plenty of coverage in the time he was lead singer of Space. He has continued to receive coverage since, e.g. Daily Post, Louder Than War, Liverpool Echo, Tom Jones: Close Up, Click Liverpool, Chester Chronicle. --Michig (talk) 08:34, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I appreciate I made the page, so disregard my opinion if necessary. Space might not be known outside Britain, but they were quite big in the '90s, have played several festivals this year and are touring in autumn, when they have an album coming out. As the above user says, Scott has been featured in the press several times over the past few years. I am currently working on getting more citations into the article as I know it lacked citations before.HebrewGrrl (talk) 09:56, 24 July 2013 (UTC)HebrewGrrl[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 16:10, 26 July 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, Michaelzeng7 (talk) 19:33, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - per a review of sources, meets WP:BASIC. Northamerica1000^(talk) 12:13, 4 August 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 Redirected to List of Microsoft Office filename extensions#Excel. If there is material to merge, you may find it in the history. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 12:20, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Xlt (file format)[edit]

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

Non-notable topic about a filename extension. Has tried to cover three distinct file formats to increase the size and so is WP:IINFO violation. Codename Lisa (talk) 01:49, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:58, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 16:09, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No coverage in reliable sources about this file format, as opposed to coverage about the Excel templates. -- Whpq (talk) 15:26, 31 July 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, Michaelzeng7 (talk) 19:31, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: A file name extension with no notability. SL93 (talk) 23:18, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Microsoft Office filename extensions, where it is already listed. Praemonitus (talk) 16:33, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to List of Microsoft Office filename extensions. Please consider merge WP:BEFORE nominating for deletion. ~KvnG 05:57, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I have redirected the page to List_of_Microsoft_Office_filename_extensions#Excel. OSborn ^arf_contribs. 04:14, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. postdlf (talk) 00:00, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Rao Samaj Villages in India[edit]

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

Completely incoherent. With a lead para of "Rao Samaj has taken up a mission to become a visionary to the Indian societies since the inception of human development. Rao Samaj is playing key role in following and maintaining Indian Tradition & Culture. People of Rao Samaj has been participating to provide well-education, Hinduism rite, Hinduism civilization and the art of living life to people and saving tradition of Rajput dynasty", it's not even possible to tell what the subject of the article is. The rest of the article is just a list of villages and the one reference is to a page with the list of villages in Hindi. Brainy J ~✿~ (talk) 19:30, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Brainy J ~✿~ (talk) 19:46, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:05, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - It's unclear if this a person or an organisation. It's so badly written, that it might not be a person or an organisation. It's not sourced. My own search turns up a mish mash of results that provide no clue. If this subject is notable (whatever this subject may be), then we would need to start from scratch anyways. -- Whpq (talk) 16:38, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per A7 Delete. I can't even figure out what it's supposed to be from the blurb at http://raosamaj.com/Home.aspx, but I suppose we can't speedy it because we don't know if it is an organization or some cultural thing. Doesn't sound like it's a person. Clarityfiend (talk) 08:26, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I think this is a list of villages with a significant number of people with the name 'Rao' or a related ancestry. Probably some bloke trying to do genealogy. With that suspicion, I also found this Rao_(surname), by the same author. I'm not going to propose deletion of that (thought it might be worth it), because that might be justification for a sitewide purge of surname pages, which I'm not willing to commit to, but there you go. If there was a source I would say merge, but I guess it's just junk data. romnempire (talk) 23:20, 9 August 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. Secret ^account 03:10, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Aegaeon (band)[edit]

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

This is a nicely presented article about an unsigned band whose records are all self-released. I cannot find any evidence that WP:GNG or WP:BAND are met. — sparklism ^hey! 08:35, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — sparklism ^hey! 08:37, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Indiana-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:32, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non notable band. Koala15 (talk) 04:16, 22 July 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, Michaelzeng7 (talk) 17:35, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Appears to fail WP:NBAND. Google News archive search provides one valid source (the other hit is the Wikipedia article) [1], but the depth of coverage is lacking. Google Books provides zero hits for this band. Not finding anything else in terms of reliable sources that cover this band. Northamerica1000^(talk) 01:20, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - they're a sick band with a full-length release and another one coming this year. They have three music videos and tons of press coverage. Plus they've been on national tours with notorious deathcore bands such as King Conquer and Carnifex (band). There is no reason to delete this page if it's just going to most likely get created again in the future and kept anyway. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.225.137.131 (talk) 12:02, 1 August 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, Michaelzeng7 (talk) 19:27, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. postdlf (talk) 00:00, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

TotalView[edit]

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

Unsourced. Also seems like an advert, and non-notable software Mdann52 (talk) 15:42, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:33, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:33, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete - There are borderline PR sources covering this, including one in the article and http://insidehpc.com/2013/04/23/totalview-debugger-shortens-app-development-cycles-at-european-universities/. Software also is mentioned on numerous university sites, though either in an incidental or how-to context. Not enough RS reference coverage to firmly establish notability. Page was created by an SPA as possibly promotional.Dialectric (talk) 01:22, 23 July 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, Michaelzeng7 (talk) 18:04, 26 July 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, Michaelzeng7 (talk) 19:24, 2 August 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. Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 11:17, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nick Oberheiden[edit]

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

WP:NOTABILITY. Claims that he made headlines don't match with the lack of gnews hits (one hit, listing him on a list of speakers). That he interviewed notable people does not make him notable. Student awards and recognition within his own law firm would not seem to rise to levels suggested by WP:GNG. Nat Gertler (talk) 19:13, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 19:44, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 19:44, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 19:46, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 19:46, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Sources show trivial coverage at best. Also plenty of heresay statements such as: "Several publications have made Oberheiden one of the most demanded experts on Brazilian law." Judicatus | Talk 20:19, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. BLP article using peacock phrases to state ... there is someone who has a Dr.. Fails WP:GNG.--Ben Ben (talk) 21:47, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I would have tagged this for speedy deletion as irredeemably promotional, but now we're here we might as well have a full discussion. I've removed some of the most nauseating promotional language but we're still left with something that doesn't resemble a neutral encyclopedia article in the least, and I can see nothing in the article or elsewhere that gives the slightest hint of notability. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:06, 3 August 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. Stifle (talk) 19:01, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ronge Fils pistol[edit]

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

I tired to find more about this pistol (see talk page), but I wasn't able to turn up much. Basically we have just some photos plus a comment "What a strange resemblance to the FN 1900!!!" on a website as sources. This company was doing what the modern-day re-branding companies do: bought stuff from others and relabeled them. So it's going to be pretty hard to figure out what this is. There are some sources about the company itself, which probably should get a page, but this particular gun (in the photo) isn't covered anywhere I've looked. Someone not using his real name (talk) 18:46, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Firearms-related deletion discussions. Someone not using his real name (talk) 18:53, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Belgium-related deletion discussions. Someone not using his real name (talk) 18:53, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Despite its appearance, the Ronge Fils functions as a standard double-action-only revolver. It holds extra ammunition in the pistol grip which must be removed and then inserted into the revolver cylinders to fire. It was chambered to fire .32 S&W cartridges, not .32 ACP. At the very least, the information in the article should be corrected. However, this firearm does not meet Wikipedia general notability guideline as it has not "received significant coverage in reliable sources" (key word: "significant"). As such, I would not oppose deletion.--RAF910 (talk) 21:52, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The photos show "7.65" imprinted on it. I'm guessing there may have been more than one version with different chambering. On the other hand, I was unable to spot any sign in the photos that this is an automatic revolver (for the wider audience of this AfD: that means it has to rotate the cylinder using the energy of the cartridge rather than that coming from the trigger pull), which is why I tagged that word with ^{[citation needed]}. I think the user who create this article added that info based on his hunch rather than some clear evidence; he has a history of adding incorrect info like that. Someone not using his real name (talk) 07:26, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Since the .32 ACP (aka 7.65 Browning) is a semi-rimmed cartridge while .32 S&W is rimmed, I suppose you're right that round for this revolver would be the rimmed one. Someone not using his real name (talk) 08:32, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, fails WP:GNG and precedent. Ansh6 6 6 00:06, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, this gun might actually have something in common with the Landstad revolver (Landstad 1900) We don't know until some sources are found. Squinting at the photo here, the Ronge Fils doesn't seem to have any mechanism for getting the rounds from the handgrip magazine into the chamber, though. Someone not using his real name (talk) 16:06, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 03:01, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Post Collapse[edit]

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

Unreleased album that does not meet the criteria for unreleased material at WP:NALBUMS. Tgeairn (talk) 18:35, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 19:32, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 19:33, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I originally Prod'ded this article as being unverifiable. Fram (talk) 06:46, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTADVERTISING. Does not meet WP:NALBUMS, and it's telling that the band itself is also non-notable. Miniapolis 17:48, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. postdlf (talk) 00:01, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Soce, the elemental wizard[edit]

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

Article fails WP:GNG. Koala15 (talk) 17:55, 2 August 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 August 2. Snotbot t • c » 18:16, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 19:29, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 19:29, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, article passes WP:GNG. Article already displays good amount of secondary source coverage in the main article page space, itself. — Cirt (talk) 23:54, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, article cites secondary sources with references. --Larrybob (talk) 23:34, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. postdlf (talk) 00:02, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

QBoy[edit]

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

Article fails WP:GNG. Koala15 (talk) 17:52, 2 August 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 August 2. Snotbot t • c » 18:15, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 19:28, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 19:28, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, was easily able to find secondary source coverage, in multiple languages. — Cirt (talk) 23:53, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, examples of secondary, reliable source articles: http://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2004/apr/16/shopping, http://www.timeout.com/london/events/q-boy-interview, http://www.popmatters.com/pm/review/107362-pic-up-the-mic-the-evolution-of-homohop/, http://web.archive.org/web/20070610103115/http://planetout.com/entertainment/music/buzzworthy/article.html?sernum=918 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Larrybob (talk • contribs) 23:57, August 7, 2013 (UTC)

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

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

The result was keep. Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 11:17, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Juba Kalamka[edit]

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

Artist fails WP:GNG. Koala15 (talk) 17:48, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep seems to pass WP:GNG, especially the google news search.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/WP:FOUR/WP:CHICAGO/WP:WAWARD) 17:05, 3 August 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 August 2. Snotbot t • c » 18:15, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 19:26, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 19:27, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, good deal of secondary source coverage. — Cirt (talk) 23:52, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, Premise of AFD seems flawed since there is a lot of media coverage.--Larrybob (talk) 23:31, 7 August 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. Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 11:17, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Lolita (orca)[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

unsourced material, references to a bogus anti-captivity Seaquarium link, and a clear overall anti-captivity agenda. Repeated attempts at remediation have been unsuccessful Cshashaty (talk) 17:42, 2 August 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 August 2. Snotbot t • c » 17:57, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:59, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organisms-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:59, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep without prejudice to WP:TNT delete/merge - notability is met, but there are clear problems with WP:SOAP. Maybe getting a fresh set of eyes on here is good. Ansh6 6 6 06:18, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Tokitae is the oldest orca in captivity and the only remaining member of the group captured in 1970 and 1971 by SeaWorld Parks in Penn Cove, WA. Those facts alone provide her with notability. --Bob2448 (talk) 10:54, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep definitely suffering from WP:SOAP, but Lolita is notable. Rewriting to remove bias should be sufficient.Rilata (talk) 02:10, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. JohnCD (talk) 15:23, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Tech 2.0 (The Show)[edit]

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

No sources, no notability, seems like an advert. -- Rsrikanth05 (talk) 17:26, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:08, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:08, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I found no coverage. SL93 (talk) 23:37, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete: Unreferenced since May 2007. It has been written like an advertisement (flagged nearly 6 years ago). I couldn't find any reliable secondary sources to prove notability or cite any content in the article. Some of the edits made by User:Aalaap (Aalaap Ghag on the TV show) are conflict-of-interest edits. Rohini (talk) 18:50, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Unreferenced & fails WP:GNG- Jayanta Nath ^{(Talk|Contrb)} 07:19, 10 August 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 Fits of Gloom. JohnCD (talk) 16:06, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Heaven (Fits of Gloom song)[edit]

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

Only sources are a discog listing, which is only proves it exists, and a confirmation of its chart position. To say a song is notable just because it charted is a misinterpretation of WP:NSONGS. Its first sentence states, "Songs and singles are probably notable if they have been the subject of multiple, non-trivial published works whose sources are independent of the artist and label." One criteria that may make a song notable is that it ranks on a significant chart, but there is no other coverage of that fact and no other reliable sources about the song itself. If the only thing that can be shown is that the song charted, the article fails WP:NSONGS. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 17:07, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note that a redirect is probably what is in order here per the requirements of WP:NSONGS: "Notability aside, a standalone article is only appropriate when there is enough material to warrant a reasonably detailed article; articles unlikely ever to grow beyond stubs should be merged to articles about an artist or album." However, my attempt to do so was reverted but I have no objection to deletion since relevant info is in the Fits of Gloom article. But if this can be expanded to merit a standalone article, I'm all for that too. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 17:13, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Fits of Gloom per nom's sound analysis. Side note, we have already a Heaven (Fits Of Gloom song) (with just a different capitalization of the word "of") which redirects there. Cavarrone 17:34, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That was the result of an over-zealous bot fixing a double redirect after movement of this song from Heaven (Fits Of Gloom song) by Richhoncho - it shouldn't redirect there.--Laun chba ller 19:02, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:03, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:03, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as article creator and per "have been the subject of multiple, non-trivial published works whose sources are independent of the artist and label" - I consider the Official Chart Company page non-trivial and Discogs enough information to take it over the edge of redirection. There is sourced information here not on the artist's page.--Laun chba ller 19:02, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Coverage on the OCC page consists of the title and one line of text. Discogs is a primary source and not evidence of notability. Peter James (talk) 08:51, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect. Only because my name has been mentioned! I moved it because it was recent and deserved time to mature as an article (in my opinion), but I can fully appreciate the nominator's rationale for bringing here. At present it is NOT a song article, it is a discography entry, and as such it will always fail WP:NSONGS. NSONGS says a song may become notable if has charted, not that charting is notable! That means a song article should have information about the song above and beyond information relating to the format (single!) i.e. some information about the song, the music, the lyrics, critical reception. --Richhoncho (talk) 10:24, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Richhoncho: just to clarify, the stuff that's on the song page but not the artist page isn't enough to take it over the edge?--Laun chba ller 17:01, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A look at WP:SONGS will help you. Cheers. --Richhoncho (talk) 18:03, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect Not notable. It got to #47 in the UK. That's a rather generous definition of "charted", since mainstream media in the UK only focuses on the Top 40 at most. There's no other claim for notability: discogs.org is user-generated content[2] and the other sources are exceptionally short. --Colapeninsula (talk) 16:40, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Official Chart Company gives the UK top 100 every week if you'd like to take a look.--Laun chba ller 11:57, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. JohnCD (talk) 15:37, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Bottle Rockets (magazine)[edit]

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

Even more poorly referenced than tinywords. I don't claim much expertise here, but hopefully someone produces WP:GNG-compliant sources. The HSA catalog may be considered somewhat independent at tinywords, but less so here. Someone not using his real name (talk) 16:15, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. Someone not using his real name (talk) 16:17, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Books, News and Websearches fail to uncover any substantial independent coverage. --gråb whåt you cån (talk) 21:40, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I suppose I should have noted here as well (besides on the article's talk page) that there is an interview with the editor/publisher at doi:10.1016/j.serrev.2003.10.007, which seems to focus on the magazine. (Don't ask me for the full text.) Someone not using his real name (talk) 13:01, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable. --Edcolins (talk) 21:01, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. postdlf (talk) 16:33, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

List of Kenyan football transfers end of 2012[edit]

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

This is not a notable domestic leagues. This article is unnecessary, so it should be deleted speedy. Almost links are red. Banhtrung1 (talk) 14:16, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:42, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Kenya-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:42, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:42, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:42, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I disagree with lists of non-notable people, they serve no real purpose. Giant Snowman 10:41, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - lists of football transfers are generally regarded as notable per WP:LISTN, because reliable sources tend to discuss this as a group. Mentoz86 (talk) 18:48, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I disagree with you there Mentoz, LISTN only indicates notability if the list has been discussed at length in independant reliable sources "as a group". I don't see any indication that football transfers in Kenya in 2012 has received anywhere near the required level of coverage as an overall subject. Given the list is also full of non-notable / redlinked players, it is hard to see how this list could serve even the most basic of navigational purposes either. Fenix down (talk) 13:32, 2 August 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, Michaelzeng7 (talk) 16:10, 2 August 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 Aqua discography. Mark Arsten (talk) 03:00, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Remix Super Best[edit]

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

This is not a notable remix album. It only charted in Japan, and that's it. There's no independent sources or significant coverage cited on this article or what I could find. The chart info could be put on the band's discography article. Editor Eat ma talk page up, scotty! 16:32, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. As with Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cartoon Heroes: The Best of Aqua merging the chart information and then redirecting would make more sense than deletion. --Michig (talk) 06:35, 18 July 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, Michaelzeng7 (talk) 15:16, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Denmark-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:51, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:51, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:51, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 16:02, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 03:03, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Bubble Mix[edit]

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

This is not a notable remix album. It only charted in New Zealand, and that's it. There's no independent sources or significant coverage cited on this article or what I could find. Editor Eat ma talk page up, scotty! 16:31, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Denmark-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:39, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:39, 19 July 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, Michaelzeng7 (talk) 15:17, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 16:01, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 03:02, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

PRQA QA·C and QA·C++[edit]

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

Fails WP:NCORP. I prodded it under the same reason but the PROD was pulled by an IP. Googling for "Programming Research Ltd" gives me nothing but user-submitted content and their website. TKK ^{bark !} 16:21, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:35, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:35, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:35, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -- The company appeaars to be Programming Research Ltd and the article should be there. PRQA apparently a trading name, but as an abbreviation, it should only exist in WP as a dab-page or redirect. QA·C and QA·C++ appear to be prducts, and should not be in the title at all, since this article is about the company, not the products. No view on merits of article. Peterkingiron (talk) 08:37, 22 July 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, Michaelzeng7 (talk) 15:19, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 16:00, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. postdlf (talk) 00:04, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Mission Junction, Los Angeles[edit]

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

No sources. Not listed in Mapping L.A. or The Thomas Guide. GeorgeLouis (talk) 15:38, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:31, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I could not even confirm that this neighborhood exists, and I could not identify a larger neighborhood to merge it to. Everything I found in a search refers to a railway junction, not a neighborhood. --MelanieN (talk) 16:25, 23 July 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, Michaelzeng7 (talk) 15:22, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There are articles on Naud Junction. See http://www.bing.com/images/search?q=%22naud+junction%22&go=&qs=bs&form=QBIR. GeorgeLouis (talk) 15:56, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Also go to the California Index at the Los Angeles Public Library, type in "Naud" and "Junction" in two of the boxes, and you will find references to Naud Junction as a place in L.A. GeorgeLouis (talk) 16:04, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In a Google News search I do find many references to Naud Junction [3] - a very old term in LA history apparently, 1890s through 1910s, long gone by the 1940s,[4] could be an interesting historical article there - but where is the evidence that Naud Junction is the same as Mission Junction? And where is the evidence that either of them was or is a neighborhood, as opposed to just a railroad stop? --MelanieN (talk) 16:31, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, railroad stops are notable. There are certainly enough of them in Wikipedia. GeorgeLouis (talk) 16:41, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 15:59, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Rename. Naud Junction appears to have references and thus be more appropriate. MMetro (talk) 17:25, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Like MelanieN, I can't find any evidence that the place exists. As for "Naud Junction", I'm finding very little, none of it substantial, and none of it coming even close to indicating notability. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 20:38, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I can't find anything that identifies this as a named neighborhood, officially or otherwise. --Oakshade (talk) 22:06, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. postdlf (talk) 00:06, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Chanapatana International Design Institute[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

I don't see substantial coverage despite surviving the last AfD. the in citation is a dead link. and only one third party sources is given. this is just a small private institute with little indepth coverage as shown in a gnews search which include Thai language media. LibStar (talk) 06:16, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Thailand-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:04, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:05, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Not sure about the dead link, but The Nation has also covered the institute in 2007 and 2009. Covered in-depth by the Asian Wall Street Journal in 2003 (reproduced in the author's website, as given in the article). Also in-depth coverage by national Thai newspapers Post Today and Kom Chad Luek. Article on the Thai Wikipedia mentions several features in Thai Rath, although they aren't available online for free. --Paul_012 (talk) 04:28, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Passes WP:GNG per [5], [6], [7]. Northamerica1000^(talk) 04:19, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 15:48, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 15:58, 2 August 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. Stifle (talk) 19:02, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Netherlands national cyclo-cross team[edit]

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

The topic seems to be not really a team, but more a selection of riders that can change within a year. I can't find any reference on this topic. I don't think the article right now is notable and besides of that it's outdated. Sander.v.Ginkel (talk) 16:08, 24 July 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 July 24. Snotbot t • c » 17:35, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. SL93 (talk) 18:15, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. SL93 (talk) 18:15, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, as per nom, these seem to be individuals who were selected for an unspecified world championships. I imagine different riders might be selected for different contests, therefore this isn't a permanent team in any sense. But this is all speculation until someone can find a reliable selection of sources! Failing that, the article serves little purpose. A "List of Dutch cyclo-cross riders" might be a more plausible article ... Sionk (talk) 22:51, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 15:57, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 03:11, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Netherlands women's national cyclo-cross team[edit]

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

The topic seems to be not really a team, but more a selection of riders that can change within a year. I can't find any reference on this topic. I don't think the article right now is notable and besides of that it's outdated. No other article links to this page. Sander.v.Ginkel (talk) 16:08, 24 July 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 July 24. Snotbot t • c » 17:35, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. SL93 (talk) 18:14, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. SL93 (talk) 18:14, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, as per nom, these seem to be individuals who were selected for the 2006 world championships. I imagine different riders might be selected for different contests, therefore this isn't a permanent team in any sense. But this is all speculation until someone can find a reliable selection of sources! Failing that, the article serves little purpose. A "List of Dutch cyclo-cross riders" might be a more plausible article ... Sionk (talk) 22:49, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The descriptions, "a selection of riders that can change within a year" and "different riders might be selected for different contests, therefore this isn't a permanent team in any sense", by substituting a relevant word for "riders", apply to any national representative team in any sport, so would not seem to be valid reasons in themselves for deletion. Let's concentrate on notability rather than such flawed reasoning. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:46, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Would you rather I spelt it out? There's no evidence of a permanent or ongoing Netherlands women's national cyclo-cross team. Fails WP:GNG. Sionk (talk) 03:20, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 15:56, 2 August 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 BattleTech#Technology. Stifle (talk) 18:57, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

BattleTech technology[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

This article is only supported by primary sources. It describes a fictional world in primarily in-universe sources. While BattleTech is notable, there is no particular evidence for notability of the technology of the fictional universe. --Craw-daddy | T | 18:30, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. --Craw-daddy | T | 18:30, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. SL93 (talk) 19:56, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Per WP:N. Monterey Bay (talk) 23:03, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:43, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 15:55, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge - All in-universe material, much duplicated and needing to be cut down. Don't delete outright. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 01:37, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge all salvageable information, probably to BattleTech#Technology. Non-notable on its own, but probably a core part of the franchise given it's sci-fi. Ansh6 6 6 06:12, 3 August 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. The article has been substantially rewritten and sourced after most of the "delete" opinions were offered. If it is still considered difficult to verify or non-notable, that should be discussed in a new nomination. Sandstein 07:14, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Anatoly Biryukov[edit]

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

Only reference is one foreign language weblink to a non-reliable source. An article needs better sourcing to meet criminal notability standards, especially when it makes such horrible claims about someone. This article was previously tagged as a possible hoax by another editor. Andrew³²⁷ 15:48, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:48, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:48, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:48, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Hoax or not, when no sources exist an article shouldn't have been made. Beerest355 Talk 18:08, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The sole reference cited is not remotely a reliable source. References to anyone by this name in English are essentially nil; Russian language references (as Анатолий Иванович Бирюков) typically share the same wording as the reference and clearly originate from the same initial source. In fact, I am not convinced the person in this article existed at all. There are considerable reference to an Alexsandr Biryukov, who shot his commanding officer to death after some two years of sexual harassment; he was sentenced to death, but that sentence was ultimately reduced, and finally pardoned. He is most certainly not the person this article describes! On the other hand, the name Анатолий Иванович Бирюков does appear in the 2000 work of fiction Остаться в живых (Staying Alive) by Ян Валетов (Ian Jacks). In all, I'm not able to say with certainty whether this is a hoax or not, although the evidence makes that likely, but I can say that it does not remotely approach the obligations for inclusion of these sort of claims. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 18:27, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- It's pretty clear you don't understand a word of Russian and are using Google Translate, because you have just translated Valetov (a personal name) as "Jacks", which was pretty amusing, and is exactly what Google Translate does with this name. Egads, beware teh wiki experts ... Someone not using his real name (talk) 22:45, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - You are correct that I do not speak Russian, but that doesn't make me incapable of evaluating the reliability of sources, nor searching for references. I remain convinced that murders.ru is not in any sense a reliable source, and the confirmation below that they intentionally doctor information (purportedly as a copyright trap) only reinforces that opinion. Likewise, I am dubious about citing any true crime semi-documentary as a reliable source, regardless of the language involved. On the other hand, while Фёдор Ибатович Раззаков evidently has something of a reputation for yellow journalism, I don't see any compelling reason to question the veracity of his book. Primarily on the grounds of that source and the cleanup that's been made to the article, I'm striking my objection. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 16:03, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    - Thank you. Even I have difficulty finding additional references for this (that would pass WP:RS beyond the shadow of a doubt). Most of the Russian books and [print] newspapers, especially older ones, are not indexed by Google in any way. I doubt that murders.ru and the 2008 book are the first print accounts of this. User:Зейнал has now found an entry in an on-line database (indexing the proceedings of the Supreme Soviet of the RSFSR) of Biryukov's appeal of his death sentence. It's a 71-page document according to this database, but the full text is not on-line. But I think we have to contend ourselves with sources that are only somewhat reliable for the time being. Otherwise we'd have to delete articles like Vera Renczi, which basically have zero truly reliable sources [confirming the case], but are supported WP:GNG-wise by dozens of Western "true crime" books. At least in Biryukov's case, we can confirm from primary, official sources that he existed and was sentenced to death. (Also, Biryukov's name is pretty common in Russian. It's like searching for a "John Wolf" or something similarly common in English.) Someone not using his real name (talk) 14:53, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: A hoax. He murdered five people in Russia's capital city, but no coverage can be found. That is highly unlikely. SL93 (talk) 23:06, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Lack of ANY coverage in reliable independent secondary sources. Zip, zero, nada, zilch. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 01:07, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It is not hoax: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H_4dNPMusyg. True crime film. Зейнал (talk) 17:55, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is not a hoax. The 42-miute NTV documentary, while being shot in a fairly annoying true crime fashion, has an interview with his former lawyer etc. Biryukov's father was an army general and hero of the Soviet Union; see clip around 37:00 [8]. It's little surprising this story didn't get out to the West back then. Not having coverage in English is not a valid reason to delete. Someone not using his real name (talk) 21:31, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Are there any reliable sources to pass WP:V and WP:N, though? The Youtube clip won't work as (unless that's the official NTV channel?) it fails WP:ELNEVER #1. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:58, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - Don't cite the clip, cite the documentary then. ~Charmlet ^-talk- 23:29, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    - Even if it were the official channel, it wouldn't mean much. The show is obviously produced for entertainment purposes, and not as a genuine attempt at investigative journalism. I wouldn't rely on it for even basic information. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 23:40, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      - One could even ask if the show itself might be fictional in its entirety. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:42, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        One doesn't have to go that far. It's enough to assume that the story was simplified and spiced up to suite consumer taste, which is reasonable, considering that the viewers of this show are probably not a discriminating lot as far as factual accuracy is concerned. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 23:57, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no reliable sources about this guy. On a Russian forum people discuss the info and write that there were no such court hearings in Moscow. The NTV documentary I suppose is based on some facts but they maybe twisted in order to entertain the reader. The second option will be to write an article about the documentary (although this the 206th episode of a TV serial so I am not sure it is that notable) and Redurect the info to the article. Alex Bakharev (talk) 00:32, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Some people doubt on forums that the Apollo landings or 9/11 happened. I don't see how that's a good argument. Someone not using his real name (talk) 05:13, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Not verifiable. Don't forget to remove from List of Russian serial killers. NickCT (talk) 00:45, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - "Анатолий Иванович Бирюков" охотник за младенцами searches his name and role as "hunter of the babies" but delivers only a few hits, including a superwiki.ru and social networking sites. So there's not much beyond the documentary ... and right now Russia is the best market in half a century for crude anti-gay propaganda... Wnt (talk) 01:07, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I suppose we can say that given the anti-pedophile hysteria in America, no source from that country is ever reliable on the topic, IF we were to user your logic. This guy killed infants, of both sexes, so I fail to see how your comment about gays has much relevance here. Someone not using his real name (talk) 05:03, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - One of the Google-translated pages called him a "homosexual" in the title, like that was the main thing about him, but my understanding here is limited - I should leave the argument to the people below who understand what's being said. Wnt (talk) 16:04, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    - The murders.ru article does not say Biryukov was gay, nor does it discuss homosexuality in relation to him. That article discusses several other Soviet serial criminals (and not necessarily murderers); coverage of Biryukov actually begins on the bottom of the previous page of the multi-page article. What you saw there was discussion of a serial rapist by the name of Sergei Dmitrievich Grigoriev (Григорьев, Сергей Дмитриевич) who operated in Leningrad not Moscow and targeted 13-15 year old girls; it's only there that the article says something about homosexuality possibly having been a factor for Grigoriev because he only sought anal and oral sex (but not vaginal), thus it was hypothesized he was looking for "passive homosexual partners". Whether that theory made any sense or not is of no relevance in this AfD. Someone not using his real name (talk) 20:37, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as failing verifiability, this is core to the project, readers have to know what they read is true, willing to change position if a WP:RS can be found. LGA _talk^edits 01:21, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The video is legit found on official web site as well. Interviews with enough eye witnesses therein to make this hard to doubt on the basics. IF you're after hoaxes, you may want to start with truly implausible claims. Oh wait, those have been repeated by dozens of Western "true" crime publications, copying from each other, even where there's no record of the events in the original country. Someone not using his real name (talk) 04:59, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Here you can read the official episode summary, which includes the list of experts and eyewitnesses interviewed in the footage:

206. ПУСТАЯ КОЛЯСКА
1977 год. Москва. Роковая беспечность — оставить коляску на улице и уйти на минутку, и... потерять ребенка навсегда. Кто он, охотник за младенцами? Его ищет милиция и сами родители. История самого засекреченного маньяка. Одна из самых ужасных криминальных историй советского времени. Участвуют: Лада Бондаренко, очевидец событий; Борис Шехтман, в 1977г. инспектор уголовного розыска 132 о/м г.Москвы; Кирилл Барышников, очевидец событий; Владимир Калиниченко, следователь по особо важным делам при Генеральном прокуроре СССР; Сергей Каграманов, сосед; Гульзиган Ананьева, мать Юлии Ананьевой; Борис Ривкин, в 1977г. адвокат; Виктор Мамохин, отец Наташи Мамохиной; Валентина Мамохина, мать Наташи Мамохиной.

Someone not using his real name (talk) 05:34, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a hoax. Carrite (talk) 05:35, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The inspector interviewed, Борис Шехтман, can be confirmed from official sources (copy of Duma documents) to exist and have an age matching his appearance in the video [9]: "Шехтман Борис Иегович, 1954 г.р., сстарший инспектор штаба УВД СЗАО города Москвы". Someone not using his real name (talk) 05:57, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Борис Ривкин, the defense lawyer, also seems to exist [10] What you guys are basically saying is that there guys are liars or have all been impersonated on a mainstream TV channel. Not plausible in my view. Someone not using his real name (talk) 06:08, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Another expert interviewed in this episode is Владимир Иванович Калиниченко, although he doesn't say much about the case itself. Someone not using his real name (talk) 08:55, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Someone graciously contributed a link to what turns out is a book by a Russian journalist, covering this

Раззаков Фёдор Ибатович [in Russian] (2008). Бандиты семидесятых, 1970—1979. Эксмо. pp. 370–371. ISBN 5699271422.

If you're having trouble getting the book, and don't mind the "samizdat" (read pirated) version of the book for WP:V purposes, you can check out the pages here: [11] [12] Otherwise, the book is held by US Library of Congress and U Penn library among others [13], so you can go check it out in the US too, or even request it via ILL in that country. Someone not using his real name (talk) 07:17, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The book recounts in some detail only the first two of the baby kidnappings-murders (one on Sep 16 and the other on Sep 19, 1977), then says without any details that there were three more before a failed attempt lead to his capture. The book does not say anything about his father though. Someone not using his real name (talk) 08:01, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I can clarify. I wrote to the site murders.ru. Here's what they wrote (in Russian):

http://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%9E%D0%B1%D1%81%D1%83%D0%B6%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BD%D0%B8%D0%B5:%D0%91%D0%B8%D1%80%D1%8E%D0%BA%D0%BE%D0%B2,_%D0%90%D0%BD%D0%B0%D1%82%D0%BE%D0%BB%D0%B8%D0%B9_%D0%9D%D0%B8%D0%BA%D0%BE%D0%BB%D0%B0%D0%B5%D0%B2%D0%B8%D1%87Зейнал (talk) 14:44, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Site Murders.ru specifically distorts information to combat plagiarism. The special star (*) in the corner of a page talking about it http://www.murders.ru/internet_versya.html. Зейнал (talk) 14:47, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If I may clarify what this is about.

On the forum which User:Alex Bakharev mentioned above, a number of people noted the discrepancy between the family and initial arrest photos in which Anatoly Biryukov appears on NTV and the photo (priorly) circulating on the internet, which is apparently also him but shortly before his execution. I agree too that the discrepancy is not that big. In the NTV photos Anatoly Biryukov appears clearly obese (photos go down to his beer gut). It's not impossible that he lost two dozen kilograms between his arrest (Oct. 1977) and execution (1979). I doubt they would have treated him very well in a Soviet prison. Anyway, there is no freely available photo include here, so this dispute is not particularly relevant to the English Wikipedia.
Another discrepancy noted on that Russian forum was that the middle/father name of Biryukov differs between NTV and murders.ru. Алексей Пшунетлёв, the author of murders.ru (who has also published some books on other famous murders in the USSR, but I don't know if any of his books cover Biryukov) has clarified on the ruwiki talk page that he changed the middle name of Biryukov on his website in order to "catch plagiarists". Indeed Biryukov's middle name is not given in the 2008 book by Раззаков (this you can verify easily) or in the NTV show, as far as I can remember (although the latter discusses his father). Again not an issue because until someone thought to copy that info blindly here [14] (note that it doesn't match the name as give in Latin transliteration).
Finally, Алексей Пшунетлёв complained that the NTV show omitted to mention or discuss the sexual aspect of the murder-kidnappings. (I can confirm this is the case, after watching the show.) This aspect is not mentioned in the 2008 book by Раззаков either. I suppose this is one issue on which we may need attribution "according to Alexei Pshunetlev..." Пшунетлёв also berated NTV for mentioning that the father of Biryukov was a war-decorated Soviet general, saying they shouldn't have done that. Пшунетлёв challenged the relevance, not the factual validity, of this info. The NTV show, in the last few minutes does suggest that Biryukov father's public image may have been a reason why the Soviet authorities have done their best to avoid publicizing the case. (In general the NTV show has been criticized by sources such as Sovetskaya Rossiya for its alleged "anti-Soviet" stance and for "harming Russia's image". You can read that on the show page in Russian Wikipedia -- you may need to look through its history tab if you are logged in, the fringe criticism was removed somewhat recently, but those edits have not been approved.)
In 2010, some anonymous guy with the handle "onalimo" said (on the Russian forum indicated by User:Alex Bakharev) that he (onalimo) sent an official request to the "Сербского" institute where the mental health of Biryukov was allegedly examined (the 2008 book mentions this too "Поскольку зверства, которые совершил Бирюков, нормальному человеку не совершить, маньяка отправили на психиатрическую экспертизу в Институт имени Сербского.") before his trial. "Onalimo" said he received an official reply that there are no records of the examination. He did not provide any concrete evidence to support his claim (like a photo of a letter). Also, "onalimo" has two posts total on that forum, both of them in that thread. Even if it is true that there are no records of Biryukov's mental health exam at that particular institute I don't think this is some smoking gun that the rest of the sources are making a hoax. (The institute appears to be the Serbsky Center. The 2012 NTV show includes interviews with two eye witnesses, the mother of one of the victims, two state investigators, and Biryukov's former lawyer, but no mental health experts, so the NTV show crew may have been unable to track down any such mental health records of Biryukov as well.)

Someone not using his real name (talk) 19:02, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have rewritten the article to remove the more speculative elements, and kept just what can be confirmed from multiple sources. Someone not using his real name (talk) 22:56, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There is absolutely no reason not to believe Leonid Kanevsky and his NTV documentary Следствие вели... or Razzakov's book "Бандиты семидесятых, 1970—1979" - why do some of you think it's unreliable?? --Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 10:35, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep

1. http://www.murders.ru/USSR_serial_killer_history_5.html

2. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H_4dNPMusyg

3. http://www.x-libri.ru/elib/razkv000/00000370.htm (Razzakov)

3 links. Зейнал (talk) 16:03, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Last link. It is the site of petitions for clemency on death penalty. Here you can see the petition Biryukova, Anatoly Nikolaevich, who was sentenced to death. On site technical problems right now, but through the cache, you can see everything.

1

2

Зейнал (talk) 17:07, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Even though this article appears not to be an outright hoax, there are concerns about verifiability and notability that keep me from changing my vote from delete. Andrew³²⁷ 20:27, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The same with me. Basically, adding all the sources together does not provide enough reliably sourced information to write a free-standing article. Seriously doubt the notability of the subject as well. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 20:51, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. There are still do many issues at play, including synth. Andrew³²⁷ 21:55, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The article as it stands now lists multiple substantial, reliable and independent sources, which should be enough to meet WP:GNG. I assume that User:Someone not using his real name used only the information available in those sources, without attempts of WP:synthesis (Btw, Someone's research and work on the article is exemplary: competent and professional). But I respect that our opinions may differ. --Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 06:32, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@User:Andrewman327 What WP:SYNTH? Can you point out a specific example? SYNTH prohibits using sources for different facts to draw some conclusion not found in the sources. It doesn't prohibit using multiple sources for the same facts. There is complete agreement between the two (print/web) sources cited in the article that the first two kidnappings occurred on Sep 16 and Sep 19 respectively. There are however some minor differences between these two sources in how other dates are given. For example, murders.ru gives the date as when the body of the 2nd victim was found as "mid-October", while the book says Oct. 17. The other way around, murdrers.ru says the attempt in Chekov was foiled on Oct 21, while the book says only it was in October. But these minor differences are actually a good thing, it shows these sources are independent of each other; they didn't just copy one another. As for the locations, there is complete agreement between the two print/web sources that the 2nd kidnapping occurred at "Children's World", on Prospekt Mira. The NTV even filmed at this location (which is now a different type of store.) As for the location of the first kidnapping, the book says it happened at an infant formula store on "Biryuzov street" ("улице Бирюзова"). And murders.ru puts the disappearance at a store of that same kind on Marshal Biruzov street. If you can find another "Biryuzov street" in Moscow, let me know. The book doesn't say precisely on which street is the building in which the body of the baby was later found on that day. (And neither does our article. I conservatively left this out.) However, both murders.ru and the NTV agree this was also on Marshal Biryuzov street; NTV even filmed outside and inside the building. We can further discuss these issues on the talk page. But it's unreasonable to ask the article to be deleted because of things like this, per "AfD is not clean-up" (WP:SURMOUNTABLE). If you want more precise footnotes, I can accommodate that, but the article will probably have footnotes after every few words in that case. This is rather unreasonable. There are plenty of FA articles which don't have that. Someone not using his real name (talk) 10:17, 6 August 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. Closing as the nominator's comment at the bottom appears to be a desire to withdraw the nomination, and I agree that the general concensus after two relistings appears to be keep anyway. (non-admin closure) | Uncle Milty | talk | 13:17, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

C.D. Graneros Unido[edit]

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

This amateur-level football club has little reliable sources. A simple search shows very little coverage of this club. There are no records of participation in professional football. It fails WP:GNG. MicroX (talk) 23:45, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Chile-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:01, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:01, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:01, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following amateur-level Chilean football clubs.

They have similar issues as C.D. Graneros Unido. They have no reliable sources and have not reached a professional division. --MicroX (talk) 04:39, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I withdraw the nomination for the older clubs: C.D. Graneros Unido, Defensor Casablanca, and Lautaro de Buin. However, the remaining clubs were more recently founded and remain unsourced. --MicroX (talk) 21:26, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Some of these teams are a century old. I can't believe that a team would be around that long, in a country as crazy about football as Chile, without having been the subject of significant coverage in reliable sources. Much of the coverage is likely to be in off-line sources, but here are some examples I found: [15][16][17]. Also note that, despite being amateur teams, Sky Bet and Paddy Powers seem to accept wagers on their matches. I feel that that's an indication of notability. Pburka (talk) 02:18, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Length of existence is not in WP:GNG. --MicroX (talk) 19:41, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - I said that the length of existence leads me to presume that they've been the subject of significant coverage in reliable sources. Then I identified some of those sources. That's in WP:GNG. Pburka (talk) 20:21, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    - Not all the clubs are that old and most of the listed clubs lack sources and notability, especially the younger clubs that were founded in the 2000s that have yet to reach a professional division. --MicroX (talk) 20:34, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      - If you'd like to remove the older clubs from this nomination I'm ok with that. I think the younger clubs are less likely to be notable. Pburka (talk) 23:35, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I think it might be better if the remaining clubs were listed individually, as they will have different characteristics. Here are a couple of links for Luis Matte Larrain, not sure if they can be said to be enough to confer notability [18] [19]. Eldumpo (talk) 08:16, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - it would be better to de-bundle and re-list each club individually at AFD. Giant Snowman 11:13, 22 July 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, czar · · 08:32, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all - These articles lack WP:POTENTIAL and fail specific notability guidelines where as they infer upon. Eduemoni ^↑talk↓ 20:26, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 15:47, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - most of these clubs have played at the fourth tier in Chile and I do believe that there is coverage out there (printed and in a language most of us don't understand) to satisfy WP:GNG. Mentoz86 (talk) 20:49, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all: This should not be a batch deletion nomination. SL93 (talk) 23:09, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The nominator seems to be under the misconception that professionalism is a requirement or a contributory factor for notability of a football team. The special notability guideline for individual players depends on professional status, but not for teams. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:02, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator comment - can this discussion be closed? It has been almost a month and the consensus is to keep them all instead of a batch deletion. --MicroX (talk) 22:26, 10 August 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. Stifle (talk) 18:59, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Han JinYu[edit]

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

The neutrality of this article is disputed. (April 2013) This article appears to be written like an advertisement. (April 2013) This article may be written from a fan's point of view, rather than a neutral point of view. (April 2013) The topic of this article may not meet Wikipedia's notability guideline for biographies. (April 2013) This article may contain an excessive amount of intricate detail that may only interest a specific audience. (April 2013) This article contains wording that promotes the subject in a subjective manner without imparting real information. (April 2013) This article relies on references to primary sources. (April 2013) This article's tone or style may not reflect the encyclopedic tone used on Wikipedia. (April 2013) This article's listed sources may not meet Wikipedia's guidelines for reliable sources. (April 2013) This article contains weasel words: vague phrasing that often accompanies biased or unverifiable information. (April 2013) Azylber (talk) 22:42, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 05:59, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:12, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:12, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: none of the problems listed by the nominator are sounds reasons for deletion. It is a problem that the article in question has no references to independent, reliable sources to establish the subject's notability, and it's not clear that notability could be established even if someone sought out such references. TheBlueCanoe 05:09, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- You're absolutely correct. I thought I had included these reasons in the nomination. For some reason I didn't. Sorry. Thanks! Azylber (talk) 08:18, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ as nominator. It's just a promotional article about someone who is not notable. Azylber (talk) 11:12, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- As nominator, you can add more comments to the discussion of course, but don't format it as if it's an independent comment in support of the nomination. postdlf (talk) 00:39, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ - No multiple secondary sources to support any notability of the subject. STSC (talk) 21:55, 20 July 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, czar · · 08:23, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: As the creator of the page in question, I naturally want to help where I can in this matter. I know the person in question but it's not intended to be a promotional article but rather an informational one. I put in references that I had at hand in the article. How can I improve the article? TTsThomas (talk) 16:01, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I edited the page, adding information and references and removing some text. TTsThomas (talk) 22:51, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Main contributor seems to be extensively related to the article's subject, subject fails WP:BIO and also fails WP:GNG, also article has multiple issues which are going to compromise its maintenance within Wikipedia in long term, such as being written as an ad and its purpose being only for benefiting the subject. Eduemoni ^↑talk↓ 20:33, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- That sounds like who knows a subject should not create an article.. I want to improve the article to also make it acceptable in other users eyes. Actually, most of the given reasons for nomination, I can't follow. Like the ad character or the weasel words? How can I improve the article?TTsThomas (talk) 10:24, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. After work on the article, there are now 2 German newspaper pieces on this person. That's a good start in terms of WP:GNG. Bondegezou (talk) 13:25, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - If more independent RS can be found then I would change my stance. STSC (talk) 11:18, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 15:46, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 03:33, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Tinywords[edit]

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

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

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

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

I see no reason to believe that this online publication is notable by our standards. The article attempts notability via namedropping of various kinds, first with a list of people whose work they have published, but that doesn't automatically make the medium notable (and, let's face it, they're not publishing Finnegan's Wake here, it's real short stuff); and second, with some resume-dropping on behalf of the editors (note that the last two "references" function that way. But without any secondary coverage at all there is no ground for accepting the subject's notability. Note also that I have removed a chunk of "information" that was really quite promotional, including a sizeable linkfarm. Oh, and there's an obvious COI in the history. Drmies (talk) 14:53, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment doi:10.1080/08893670410001698550 briefly reviews Tinywords. Someone not using his real name (talk) 14:55, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment That link appears to be behind a paywall. It doesn't look very promising, as the abstract indicates that it is a review of a book by Lee Gurga. Can you provide some more info?--gråb whåt you cån (talk) 15:24, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - Only what I could see through Google Scholar: "Haiku on tinywords are generally good, although they aren't always up to the standards of Gurga or of the Anthology." I don't have on-line institutional access to that journal and can't be bothered to look for a printed copy; the topic is far outside my interest area. Try WP:WRE. Someone not using his real name (talk) 15:40, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - [ec] I never liked the business model Taylor & Francis subscribe to. JSTOR does not have that article available; I will try some other avenues later today. Thanks for the hint. Bagworm, even if it's just a book review it might help, since it proves that the website is discussed in a published book. Drmies (talk) 15:42, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - I obtained a copy of this paper from the editor of that journal. Here is the relevant section of the review (apologies if I'm not formatting properly). I can post a PDF or screenshot if that would help. --Dtweney (talk) 21:18, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Beyond the Poet’s Guide, there are numerous other useful resources for delving

into the world of haiku. For those wishing to further explore the genre, The Haiku

Anthology (van den Heuvel, 1999) now in a 3rd expanded edition, provides a

excellent overview of some of the better haiku being written today. ...

On the World Wide Web there are too many relevant websites to mention even a

goodly percentage of them. However, for a daily shot of haiku, one may turn to

www.tinywords.com. The site features a poem of the day, which one may read at the

site or receive via email by signing up for the free service. Haiku on tinywords are

generally good, although they aren’t always up to the standards of Gurga or of the

Anthology.

Among periodicals, Modern Haiku, publishes the most consistently high quality

haiku and is a place to keep up with haiku developments through its many reviews

and articles. The magazine also publishes guidelines for contests for adults and teens.

For a highly contemporary style of haiku with an edge, a good source is Raw Nervz

out of Canada. Haiku in Raw Nervz are as likely to be about sex or the urban

nightlife as they are about quiet contemplation in nature. Many haiku poets publish

in both magazines, indicating that while Raw Nervz is ‘‘out there’’ in terms of

attitude, it’s still well respected in the haiku community.

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. Someone not using his real name (talk) 14:57, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There's also an article [20] in Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, which mentions it, for whatever that's worth. Make that two [21], actually. There's also a very Brief mention in The National (Abu Dhabi) [22]. (That's all Google News finds for "tinywords -Wired.com"; if you don't filter out the latter you'll get a lot of articles by Tweney, who is a columnist at Wired as well; his Wired byline blurb mentions his poetry site practically every time.) Someone not using his real name (talk) 15:55, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Also, there's one short paragraph in College & Research Libraries News [23]. Someone not using his real name (talk) 16:06, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- "Haiku is a serious genre of poetry, and this site contains beautifully artistic examples of the form." Seems like a strong statement of notability to me. --19:43, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
I have nominated Bottle Rockets (magazine) in a separate discussion because presently it's even more poorly sourced than this one. Someone not using his real name (talk) 16:16, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm glad there's actually discussion happening on this topic, rather than summary deletions, as has happened in the past. I have contributed edits to the tinywords entry in the past because I know more about the subject than most. However, I'm refraining from editing the article at this point because of conflicts of interest. I will say this: I believe tinywords is significant because it is a long-standing publication of haiku and short verse, it reaches a larger audience than many comparable journals (eg Frogpond and Modern Haiku), and is a pioneer in digital literary journal publishing. However, over the years various Wikipedia editors have contested the legitimacy of the tinywords entry, deleting the main entry, as well as expunging any mention of it in other pages. There seems to be something vindictive about these deletions, and some of them seem to be part of an edit war between the user "Bagworm" and other individuals. But as I'm not a regular Wikipedia editor, and I have an obvious conflict of interest in any case, there is little I can do about it. I am stumped about how to proceed. For instance, on the circulation figures -- currently over 3,000 subscribers -- I have no way of demonstrating the factual nature of that figure other than to point to the ongoing documentation of it that I've posted on the tinywords site for years. As for notability: There are references to tinywords on the web, in online forums, and in print journals, often links from people whose work have been published there, or complaints from people whose work was rejected. It clearly exists. It is clearly a literary journal with a wide readership and a large body of contributors, many of whom are significant in the haiku world in their own right. I'm not sure what else I can do but state my case, ask others to weigh in, and let Wikipedia take its course. Dtweney (talk) 16:26, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete Thanks for your input, DT. Your candidness is appreciated. (Please take a look at Wikipedia:Notability to get an idea of what's actually needed.) Of the further 4 references supplied by SNUHRN, the first is behind a paywall, and the others don't really come near being "significant coverage". Unless something substantially stronger comes up, logic dictates deletion of the article. --gråb whåt you cån (talk) 17:54, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I have assumed above that people can check out the sources already included in the article, so I did not mention those, which mainly consist of a short story [24] in Silicon Valley Business Journal and a catalog-like entry in a publication by Haiku Society of America. The other refs looks like self-published blogs. I'm not familiar with this area so I won't !vote one way or the other if this is enough or not for WP:N. Someone not using his real name (talk) 18:04, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Someone not using his real name (talk) 18:15, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

trolling by some IP
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Is this really how you spend your free time? It's a cool site and deserves as much mention here as thousands of other less significant entities. Leave the damned entry as is and get a life, please. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.63.207.108 (talk) 20:14, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Drmies wrote: "they're not publishing Finnegan's Wake here, it's real short stuff". I don't think this comment is relevant. The length of a poem has no correlation with its significance. If it did, there'd be no entry for Matsuo Basho. --Dtweney (talk) 21:21, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Drmies also said he removed a "sizeable linkfarm." In the process he's also deleted many details about tinywords that help explain its significance, such as references to the fact that tinywords publishes via SMS (one of the first literary journals to do so) and RSS (ditto), as well as its i-Mode and Avantgo versions. I'm not adding them back -- in fact I am not the person who put those links in there in the first place -- but the edit has the effect of making the entry look less significant. It seems to me that the argument about significance should take place here on this discussion page, not via edits to the article in question, shouldn't it? Or is that not how things are done on Wikipedia? --Dtweney (talk) 21:40, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per lack of notability and lack of substantial coverage in independent reliable sources. A caution to the users above that posting walls of text and attacks ("get a life") is not the way to win an AFD debate and really isn't helping your cause at all. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 23:21, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Andrew, in fairness, that "wall of text" was posted in response to my request for further info regarding a reference that was hidden behind a paywall. The editor is relatively inexperienced and did apologise upfront for the formatting. Of course I agree with you about the "get a life" attack. --gråb whåt you cån (talk) 23:33, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - Thanks. My admittedly big "wall of text" is an effort to put the citation in context. The point being: At least one academic paper thought tinywords significant enough to merit a mention -- the only online journal mentioned -- along with some significant print journals & books of haiku. As for the "get a life" attack, I agree; I have no idea who posted that. --Dtweney (talk) 23:39, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment "there's an obvious COI in the history" according to Drmies. I assume that's referring to edits I've made several times over the years. I will point out that my edits have always been relatively minor. I was not the creator of this entry, nor have I been its primary editor over the 6 or 7 years it has existed. Therefore, the COI is irrelevant to the discussion of notability. If the COI is a problem, you can delete any of my contributions. But the entry's notability should be judged independent of those contributions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dtweney (talk • contribs) 19:49, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
More references: tinywords was recognized by Mashable in 2010 [25] and is mentioned by New Jersey On-Line in an article about one of the site's editors. [26] --Dtweney (talk) 20:06, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
tinywords editor Peter Newton's biography at The Haiku Circle (a longstanding annual gathering, often featuring notable haiku poets [27]), where he is currently the Director, mentions his role with tinywords [28]. Newton is also a staff member at the Bread Loaf Writers' Conference. --Dtweney (talk) 20:23, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm a bit concerned that the initial reason given for deletion appears to suggest some contempt for the haiku form ("let's face it, they're not publishing Finnegan's Wake here, it's real short stuff"). I'd hate to see a unique, long-lived and well-respected publication go off the grid by an act of ignorant caprice. - pauldavidmena — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pauldavidmena (talk • contribs) 21:16, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Again, STOP with the personal attacks. It's against policy here and will NOT get the article kept. You may comment here (briefly, if possible) and express your disagreement if you wish but name-calling and insults ARE NOT ACCEPTABLE. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 03:16, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - Andrew, respectfully, Paul's comment is not a personal attack. He was pointing out that the person who started this page cited a point which indicates contempt for haiku and very short poems. Since the legitimacy of the haiku entry is not in question, it seems fair to point out that such comments are not only irrelevant, but may sway this discussion unfairly. Earlier, you complained about my citing of a source requested by another user. I think you need to allow the discussion to happen. --Dtweney (talk) 04:10, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There are at least 9 independent sources, listed above, referring to tinywords' significance and notability, including two academic journals, several mainstream regional newspapers, and one major tech blog (Mashable). I have an obvious COI (I used to edit tinywords and still publish it) but I see nothing in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion or Wikipedia:Conflict of interest that prevents me from expressing a vote here as long as I'm aboveboard, which I have been in every edit and comment. Also, please note that the majority of my edits to this discussion and to the tinywords page have been to add links to independent sources. Dtweney (talk) 23:31, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This article can definitely be improved, and as the discussion has shown, there are good sources out there to support the article. Merrilee (talk) 22:26, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Found this reference to tinywords in a Modern Haiku essay. I believe it speaks to the notability of tinywords. In addition, I'd just like to add that tinywords is unique in its delivery system inasmuch as the interactive feature. Comments range from a handful per day to hundreds, depending on the post. We publish haiku and other small poems. Essentially, the standard form of communication on social networking sites is short form. We are being asked to communicate using fewer and fewer words. Of course, there is a long tradition of short verse in this country as well as in Japan. tinywords is unique in its longevity (founded in 2000) and its scope. I find that too often people confuse short verse with light verse. One of our goals at tinywords is to encourage and support the thoughtful construction of poems, one word at a time. http://www.modernhaiku.org/essays/AmHaikuMovement2.html … #tinywords — Preceding unsigned comment added by Peter Newton (talk • contribs) — Peter Newton (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

It seems pretty obvious that the above is a meatpuppet. I'm not sure if it qualifies as "outing" to point out that someone with the same name as the above SPA either is or was an editor on tinywords and might know Mr. Tweney personally.[29] The article he links to briefly mentions the website along with numerous others that don't seem to have stand-alone Wikipedia articles, so it actually speaks to the non-notability of the subject if anything. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 03:13, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Going through all the references, it appears that almost all are blogs of uncertain reliability, homepages of involved persons, links to sites that don't even mention this publication (I have removed those), and one (1) article in the Silicon Valley/San Jose Business Journal, which (even if it is a reliable source, which I find doubtful) is not sufficient to meet WP:GNG. --Randykitty (talk) 17:02, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Just for the record: the website publisher just added several sources to the article. In my opinion, none of these in-passing mentions establish notability and I see no need to change my !vote. --Randykitty (talk) 17:32, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

- I respect your opinion, but there are 10 independent sources listed on this discussion page here, none of which are blogs, and all of which mention tinywords. Dtweney (talk) 17:57, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Except perhaps for the Silicon Valley Business Journal piece [30], the other reliable sources ((1) Rossiter, Charles (2004). "Haiku: there's more than meets the eye". Journal of Poetry Therapy: The Interdisciplinary Journal of Practice, Theory, Research and Education. 17 (1): 45–48. doi:10.1080/08893670410001698550.; (2) the paragraph in College & Research Libraries News, Volume 64) contain only a passing reference to the web site. The topic does not appear to have received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject (WP:GNG). --Edcolins (talk) 20:42, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As the person who originally redirected the article (note: despite the persistent accusations of several users, I did not -- and can not -- "unilaterally delete" the page) my opinion on this page should be obvious.[31] Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and doesn't provide free advertising to poetry websites. Why is it that all of the "Wikipedia editors" who argue in favour of these kind of pages turn out to be people with a very close connection to the subject? I used to take AGF too far, and referred to these editors as "fans" but it's become pretty obvious that these websites don't have any "fans" who believe the websites deserve their own Wikipedia articles. Messieurs Tweney and Newton should leave this discussion, and if good-faith, non-COI Wikipedians decide at a later date that this article should exist then it can. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 03:13, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have conducted every single edit & comment to this discussion in good faith. I've always been aboveboard about my connection to tinywords and have made every effort to learn Wikipedia's rules and community standards. But it now seems clear that this discussion is motivated by something other than a dedication to facts. Despite the many sources named here, a group of editors seems bent on voting for deletion regardless of sourcing. I can't win, so I'm no longer going to make any effort to defend the article. Delete it if you will, I'm done trying to make a case for something so obvious. Dtweney (talk) 23:23, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. postdlf (talk) 16:33, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

List of international Melbourne Victory players[edit]

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

Unnecessary fork from List of Melbourne Victory players. No sourced prose at all and no attempt to indicate why international Melbourne victory players are notable. Seems to contravene WP:NOT#STATS. The very fact that there really aren't that many players suggests there is inherently nothing notable about this group. Fenix down (talk) 13:18, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Fenix down (talk) 13:20, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:43, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:43, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:43, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It's a shame that when an editor creates multiple instances of garbage there is a risk that at least one instance will slip through because it isn't noticed or commented on. Everything that's being said over at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Melbourne Victory Notable Players also applies here and should not have to be reposted here. HiLo48 (talk) 03:00, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: A POV list. SL93 (talk) 03:06, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

[NOTE: Editors need to be aware that this editor has created multiple instances of garbage, all in defiance of requests to him back at the original article. You may also want to comment at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Melbourne Victory Notable Players. (Although I have put a note there pointing out that everything said here also applies there.) ] HiLo48 (talk) 03:16, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - content fork. Giant Snowman 08:23, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merged - Merged to List of Melbourne Victory F.C. players Footwiks (talk) 09:55, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. postdlf (talk) 16:32, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Melbourne Victory Notable Players[edit]

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

The inclusion criteria given is so vague that the list consists solely of OR. Openly states that there are players who have played less than 50 matches and also includes others who have made vague unspecified "significant contributions". Furthermore this list seems to be an unnecessary fork from the club article. I removed this list from the club article originally for the reasons above plus the club article already has tables related to top appearances and goals so seems duplication. Essentially this page is WP:CRUFT. Fenix down (talk) 13:12, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Fenix down (talk) 13:23, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:38, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:38, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:38, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: A POV list of "notable" players. SL93 (talk) 23:13, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The editor who created this article had previously tried to include this content in the Melbourne Victory FC article. It was removed and it was explained to him that much clearer criteria are required. Rather than addressing that issue, he has just created this article, with exactly the same content, AND the same problems as his addition to the other article. This is both a pointless, POV, fan drive article, and a demonstration that an editor is trying to avoid a consensus reached elsewhere. It demonstrates very bad faith. I must also add that it should be unnecessary for all the material on the Talk page of the article to be repeated here in order to get rid of this nonsense. Contentious editors should not be able to force volunteer editors working in good faith to do even more work. HiLo48 (talk) 02:33, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:OR. Who judges if this list is correct in the long run? This article's creator alone. This does not sound like sound subjective judgement in my view. --Artene50 (talk) 01:49, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. POV article that will remain WP:CRUFT.Doctorhawkes (talk) 02:22, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

[NOTE: Editors need to be aware that this editor has created multiple instances of garbage, all in defiance of requests to him back at the original article. You may also want to comment at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of international Melbourne Victory players. (Although I have put a note there pointing out that everything said here also applies there.) ] HiLo48 (talk) 03:04, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - unnecessary duplication of List of Melbourne Victory F.C. players as all MV A-League players are considered notable. The list in the article contains players with as few as two A-League appearances - it is not clear how a player with two appearances could be any more notable than any other player. Hack (talk) 06:51, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - content fork, absolute POV. Giant Snowman 08:24, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merged - Merged to List of Melbourne Victory F.C. players Footwiks (talk) 09:54, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. JohnCD (talk) 15:29, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Serpent Cataclysm[edit]

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

Contested prod. Totally unverifiable, crystal balling (release date still over a year from now). User has a tendency to create pages for unreleased, unconfirmed, and even undiscussed albums (only one of his creations has been retained, the others are all deleted or up for deletion). The only Google hits are four Wikipedia pages, not a single other mention could be found (never mind reliable sources establishing notability)[32] Fram (talk) 12:22, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Wikipedia is not a place for fan cruft. Eduemoni ^↑talk↓ 12:33, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:36, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:37, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. postdlf (talk) 00:06, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Binatorix[edit]

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

No GS or Google books hits for either binatorix or "binary toroidal matrix". Neither of the cited sources has anything to do with the subject of the article: the first source is not even a mathematical source, and the second source has something about circular binary sequences (a one-dimensional object), not toroidal binary matrices (a two-dimensional object). The subject seems to be WP:MADEUP/WP:OR. Sławomir Biały (talk) 12:15, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Sławomir Biały (talk) 12:17, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete - Blatant WP:HOAX. Eduemoni ^↑talk↓ 12:44, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ — I don't think it's a hoax, but I do think it's original research. The author appears to be claiming to have found a 2-dimensional analogue of a de Bruijn sequence. Spectral sequence (talk) 16:45, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This seems to be in a strange place between madeup, or identical to a De Bruijn torus. Chris857 (talk) 17:06, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Good find! I'm changing to Redirect to De Bruijn torus. Spectral sequence (talk) 17:12, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I agree with Chris857 that the math object described seems closest to a De Bruijn torus; it seems also related to m-sequences and Gray codes. But I could find no mention of a 'Binatorix' outside of a single personal Google page; the name seems made up. There are no reliable sources to establish Binatorix as a valid search term for a redirect. The synthesis of this with the Borges story also seems original research. Because of the near nonexistence of this topic, I will recommend 'delete' rather than 'redirect'. The 'binatorix' entry in List of matrices should also be deleted. --Mark viking (talk) 19:23, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no redirect. (0,1)-matrices are certainly important, and toroidal (0,1)-matrices (the apparent subject of this article) do come up in some circumstances such as the simulation of cellular automata as well as the aforementioned de Bruijn tori. But the title, and the entire current contents of the article, seem to be a violation of WP:NEO and WP:NOR. I don't think a redirect is appropriate, both because the title doesn't appear anywhere in the scientific literature and because de Bruijn tori are a somewhat different concept (they don't have to be binary and they do have to have the property of containing all square submatrices of a given size, something that doesn't seem to be true of the subject of this article). —David Eppstein (talk) 20:55, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As the originator of the "binatorix" entry I am glad someone pointed out the similarity to De Bruijn torus, which is very relevant. "Back to the drawing board", as my supervisor used to say. Breggen (talk) 23:36, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - WP:NEO/WP:MADEUP title makes it useless as a redirect. No official comment on the content, but I doubt it's notable enough. Ansh6 6 6 06:22, 3 August 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. Sandstein 07:03, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Shoaib Ibrahim[edit]

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

This is a minor actor with references in only primary sources. When and if he becomes notable he may have an article, just not yet. Fiddle Faddle 12:15, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. This article has been redirected to the show's article at Sasural Simar Ka - but this actor isn't listed among the cast. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 13:48, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:35, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:35, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I've undone the redirect to Sasural Simar Ka, so people can assess the article and because it was placed here for discussion. Northamerica1000^(talk) 12:26, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete on the merits, then. I can't find sources that discuss this actor. Given his age, I'm thinking that the usual caveats apply, however - he seems to have a long career ahead of him, and may easily become notable later on. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 12:08, 5 August 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. No prejudice towards a merge discussion. Mark Arsten (talk) 03:31, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Death of the Bytyqi brothers[edit]

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

A largely unnotable, albeit tragic case. As dozens of similar cases occurred during the war, the article fails Wikipedia:Notability. Within the first few weeks of their arrival, this BBC article says that as many as 16 Albanian American volunteers were killed in Kosovo. If so many were being killed then what makes these 3 so special in the wider context of the war? 23 editor (talk) 22:39, 16 July 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 July 16. Snotbot t • c » 22:54, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Notability argument does not support deletion in case of the topic of this article because it actually is notable because it "has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". Three USA citizens have been killed. USA government, directly or through its embassy in Belgrade, put significant efforts into this case. The BBC article does not say that all 16 volunteers killed in Kosovo were Albanian Americans. On the contrary, it emphasizes that "Ethnic Albanians are leaving their jobs across Europe and the United States to return to their homeland." Even if the other 13 came from USA they were probably not USA citizens, otherwise USA government would deal with them too.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 12:22, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with you. Not every incident in which US citizens are killed merits a Wikipedia article. 23 editor (talk) 13:19, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I based my position on the "significant coverage in reliable sources" not on the citizenship of the victims which is only an explanation for the coverage. In order to make it clear I will strike trough part of my comment. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 18:20, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I failed to see why death of 3 USA citizens is more important than death of any other citizen from some other country. Also, i agree that notability of this is questionable. It may be a subject in some other article, but i do not think it deserves a separate article as it is. --WhiteWriter^speaks 14:58, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I was thinking we include some of its content in articles like War crimes in the Kosovo War. Thoughts? 23 editor (talk) 17:33, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that would be more then ok! --WhiteWriter^speaks 20:23, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Summarize and merge content into War crimes in the Kosovo War. The Bytyqi brothers are themselves unnotable, but the crime is worthy of inclusion in the appropriate article.--Zoupan 11:46, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Kosovo-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:38, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Serbia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:39, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:39, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Indeed notability argument does not support deletion in case of the topic of this article because it actually is notable because it "has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". --BabbaQ (talk) 18:42, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to War crimes in the Kosovo War per 23 editor. While certainly tragic, subject does not seem to have received the persistent coverage required for a standalone article. Miniapolis 13:15, 23 July 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, L Faraone 01:13, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Tom Morris (talk) 08:50, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep; there has been substantial coverage by independent sources. I agree that may others were killed by Serb forces, and look forward to 23 editor improving content on other killings rather than selectively removing it. bobrayner (talk) 19:17, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Mars program#Mars 4M. (non-admin closure) Michaelzeng7 (talk) 16:58, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Mars 4NM[edit]

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

Contested CSD and PROD. PROD reason was "There is no notability asserted. There is a wikilink to another article, good, but no context in the article, nor citations. This article requires either expansion, or deletion." Fiddle Faddle 08:35, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 09:04, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 09:04, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect — this article should be redirected to Mars Program (Mars 4M) or Mars 5NM, and its content merged. Mars 4NM does not add new info compared to the two existing articles that I have previously mentioned. Toffanin (talk) 09:30, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - To either of the suggested titles above. Does not add anything. PantherLeapord|My talk page|My CSD log 09:44, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - this article (which in its current form does not pass any of the Wikipedia's notability guidelines) needs to be redirected to Mars__program#Mars_4M if it is to be kept at all. The redirect of this one-sentence article should be uncontroversial and is per all Wikipedia guidelines. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 155blue (talk • contribs) 18:26, August 2, 2013 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. No secondary sources about McGrath. Krakatoa Katie 21:00, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Roland McGrath[edit]

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

Lacks reliable independent secondary sources to establish notability as required by WP:GNG. Googling suggests they don't exist. Sources offered are all WP:PRIMARY or otherwise unsuitable. Msnicki (talk) 14:29, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep He's one of the original authors of three programs (GNU Make, the GNU C Library, and GNU Hurd) that have WP articles, and are evidently notable. He's listed as an author of the manuals for all three. Richard Stallman cites him as the author of the GNU C library in Stallman's essay published in Sources: Voices from the Open Source Revolution.
I added a reference to article to the LWN.net article about utrace, citing McGrath as developer. It's a real article written by LWN staff, not a reprinted mail message. There are four such articles: [33], [34], [35], and [36]. I believe that's significant coverage in a reliable source independent of the subject. --Jimblandy (talk) 01:48, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No one (or at least, not me) disputes that he did the work but notability isn't WP:INHERITED. Even if some of his programs are notable, that doesn't mean he is automatically notable. It's not sufficient to argue he should be notable because, after all, look at what he wrote. The only question at AfD is whether there are WP:INDEPENDENT WP:RELIABLE WP:SECONDARY sources to establish that he's notable as required by WP:GNG. The sources you've cited are insufficient. Stallman is the leader of the FSF and of the GNU project and isn't independent. The other citations you've offered are basically blog posts (what we call an WP:SPS) and, as such, can't qualify as reliable because there's no editorial control. Different editors may interpret the guidelines somewhat differently but the usual gold standard for establishing notability is a couple thousand-word articles about the subject in recognized publications with reputations for fact-checking and editorial control by authors with no connection to the subject. We don't have that here. Msnicki (talk) 00:00, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Re WP:INHERITED: I've read that, and I don't think I'm making one of those arguments. If three books are notable, surely the author of those books is notable. The rules for WP:BAND say that the appearance a band's music in a country's top lists makes the band notable. Oughtn't a similar relation hold for software?

Re LWN: Blogs can have the sorts of editorial standards that matter here, and I believe Linux Weekly News does. LWN is one of the most reliable sources of news for people following the technical development of the Linux kernel. Jimblandy (talk) 02:02, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:41, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:41, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:41, 8 July 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) 18:00, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If McGrath is notable, it would be because of the software he has written; he is not a major author or researcher. Wikipedia's policies for creative professionals (WP:CREATIVE) answer the question directly, requiring that significant or well-known works confer notability on their creator (assuming one agrees that programmers are creative professionals); this is not an WP:INHERITED issue. To be clear: most significant or well-known software has many contributors (as does McGrath's), and not all those contributors are notable. However, McGrath is recognized as the original or primary author of the projects mentioned. Jimblandy (talk) 04:29, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's not enough under WP:CREATIVE that the subject is the original author of any of his works. It also requires, the work be "a significant or well-known work, or collective body of work, that has been the subject of an independent book or feature-length film, or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews" or that it has either "(a) has become a significant monument, (b) has been a substantial part of a significant exhibition, (c) has won significant critical attention, or (d) is represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums."' There's no way the GNU C lib or GNU Make qualifies (they're just copies of earlier works by others) and he only just worked on the other stuff. Msnicki (talk) 07:53, 20 July 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, czar · · 08:22, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

GNU Make is not merely a derivative of the original Make. GNU Make is often considered the canonical modern version of Make. When people choose to cite Make at all, they often cite GNU Make. For example:
- Topic of thesis by Ludwig Hähne, Empirical Comparison of SCons and GNU Make, Großer Beleg (which I understand to mean "Bachelor's thesis"), Technical University Dresden.
- Cited by Stephan Douglas Craven, Structured Approach to Dynamic Computing Application Development, PhD. thesis, Virginia Polytechnic Institute.
- Cited by Joshi, Kakade, Trivedi, [NODE LISTING BASED GLOBAL DATA FLOW ANALYSIS http://freya.cs.uiuc.edu/~rujoshi/bereport.pdf], Bachelor of Engineering Project Report, University of Pune.
- Cited by Rohan Drape, Rule-following, Precompositional Environments, Master of Arts Thesis, La Trobe University.
- Cited by Stephan Thesing, Standard-und Programmiertools für UNIX, not sure what kind of document this is, but the author was a student at Universität des Saarlandes when he published it.
  Jimblandy (talk) 21:20, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The discussion as above cites pretty much everything why the article should not be maintained, subject is not notable and notability is not inherit, making an important software or a bunch of them does not confer notability, also there is a requirement in the academic field for having an article, which subject does not meet as well. Eduemoni ^↑talk↓ 20:36, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Please avoid repeating arguments. As explained above, inheritance is not claimed. The only plausible basis for notability is WP:CREATIVE, which establishes that the creator of works meeting certain criteria is notable. It's reasonable to argue whether his work meets those criteria, but you haven't presented any reasons. If you feel that the GNU C Library and GNU Make page and section should also be deleted, then certainly McGrath's page should go as well; but let's hear those arguments. Jimblandy (talk) 02:22, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Let me try to summarize the points of disagreement here:
- Can a programmer's work confer notability? If not, then we agree McGrath is not notable. But I think it should, for the same reason that an author's works, a band's songs, or a composer's pieces confer notability on their creator. People find the creators of artifacts that are of great significance to them interesting. This is the essence of WP:CREATIVE.
- Is McGrath's work, in fact, sufficiently valuable? If not, then we agree McGrath is not notable. Here there is more room for debate. Msnicki points out that both GNU C Library and GNU Make are expansions of prior work, and thus considers them not to meet WP:CREATIVE's criteria. I think his work is sufficiently notable. They are widely used. They are cited by scholarly works. And they have Wikipedia articles (or, in the case of GNU Make, a section). Jimblandy (talk) 22:51, 1 August 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, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 07:42, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The subject passes WP:CREATIVE, criterion 3: he has a significant body of work and is coauthor of a number of well-known works. Sławomir Biały (talk) 12:47, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That section requires the work must have "been the subject of an independent book or feature-length film, or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews." How-to books don't count. What sources do you rely on? Msnicki (talk) 13:25, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Is it your contention that GNU Make, the GNU C Library, and the GNU Hurd have not been the subject of independent reviews? I just took this as given, but I am willing to argue against that point if you really want to hang your hat on it. Sławomir Biały (talk) 13:28, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. There are lots of how-to books about using the GNU tools but these are not reviews. What WP:CREATIVE asks is that the work is of such import that it has spawned serious discussion of the subject's ideas and influence. That's not satisfied by a regurgitation of the syntax for Make. Msnicki (talk) 13:53, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your narrow view of WP:CREATIVE would exclude things like reference books about the subject (of which there are a number), a position I'm not sure I agree with. But even accepting this viewpoint, there are many many reviews of GNU tools available. Here is a review of GNU Hurd published in an ACM journal. Linux journal has a review from 1994. These references just scratch the surface. Sławomir Biały (talk) 14:48, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The subject worked on Hurd. He didn't write the thing. It's doubtful the article even mentions his name. (No, I'm not buying the article to find out. But you can, if you think it'll prove me wrong.) And the Linux Journal article isn't a review, it's a how-to article in largely how-to journal. That's why the title is, "Introduction to the GNU C Library". Msnicki (talk) 15:18, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, there are entire books written on GNU Make: e.g., "GNU Make Unleashed". Sławomir Biały (talk) 16:08, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And how much does it have to say about Roland McGrath? Click the link for "how-to". At best, these sources establish notability of GNU Make. Just because the subject wrote something notable doesn't make him notable; that's not what WP:CREATIVE intended or they'd have said it. Msnicki (talk) 16:24, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

He's a principal coauthor of GNU Make and the GNU C Library, with rms, and also one of the principal architects of GNU Hurd. The WP:CREATIVE policy states: "The person has created, or played a major role in co-creating, a significant or well-known work, or collective body of work, that has been the subject of an independent book or feature-length film, or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews." This is obviously the case. There is no provision that books like "GNU Make Unleashed" are disqualified, nor of the review article "Introduction to the GNU C Library". The GNU Hurd article I already referenced is also an independent review (others are available to choose from, e.g., Jerry Epplin, "Inside Debian Hurd", Dr Dobb's Journal of Software Tools, 25(12):21-26, December 2000). Entire books on Glibc include "GLIBC: A Comprehensive Reference to GNU/LINUX libC" published by MacMillan and "GNU C Library Application Fundamentals" published by the FSF, and "Glibc: a comprehensive reference to GNU/Linux libC" (by Jeff Garzik) published by New Riders Publishing (2000). O'Reilly has a book "Managing Projects with GNU Make". These clearly point to the significance of the subject's collective body of work, and the requirements of WP:CREATIVE#3 quoted above are amply met. I'm not sure where you get the idea that WP:CREATIVE didn't say that a subject isn't notable if his collective body of work is significant—that's precisely what it says. Sławomir Biały (talk) 23:14, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unable to find even one reliable source with significant coverage of Roland McGrath. I'm not swayed by the WP:CREATIVE arguments made by Jimblandy (talk · contribs) and Sławomir Biały (talk · contribs). ~KvnG 06:07, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. JohnCD (talk) 15:30, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

social selling[edit]

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

Non notable neologism, references notwithstanding. Fiddle Faddle 07:27, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 08:27, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural Note - there are social selling and "social selling" (note the quotes) that are essentially identical. Whatever decision comes of one should apply to the other, and if for some reason there is a keep, one should be redirected to the other. Chris857 (talk) 14:50, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That is being handled procedurally. The newer is a copy and paste move of the older after the AfD was started, perhaps to bypass it, and has been proposed for speedy deletion as such. Fiddle Faddle 16:38, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Edits now merged to social selling. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 21:05, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

With that said, I vote Delete or Redirect to social media marketing. This blog? from Forbes (June 2013) indicates that "social selling" is a very recent neologism, and I can only find blogs discussing this topic. It does not seem fundamentally different from a form of marketing in a social media platform. Chris857 (talk) 14:50, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Ill-referenced neologism. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 21:05, 2 August 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. We don't have a consensus for deletion, although at a minimum we have consensus that this article requires much cleanup. Sandstein 06:58, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Welfare schemes for women in India[edit]

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

I have no idea what this article is trying to be. At worst it's non-notable, at best it's a piecemeal article throwing things together in an attempt to make a coherent topic. Either way, unsuitable for the site. Wizardman 15:19, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:37, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:37, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Move to Women's rights in India, or merge to Human rights in India. Most of the information is salvagable, but it's currently a mess, and the title is nonsense. Bearian (talk) 16:10, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge, per Bearian (talk · contribs), above. Cheers, — Cirt (talk) 02:38, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is what this article tries to be - From birth to death what are the welfare schemes available for women in India . At worst it's non-notable -> Requesting you to say why it's non-notable piecemeal article throwing things together in an attempt to make a coherent topic -> Exactly , Wikipedia tries to do the same . Throwing things together in an attempt to make a coherent topic . Isn't it ?

Even in the talk page I have mentioned the order in which the article can proceed .

Why does an "entitlement" article be moved to "rights" article ?

Title is non-sense ->in what way ?

Commons sibi (talk) 04:44, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Move to user's personal space for development per WP:USERFY. This article should exist, it should have this name, and it should not be renamed to to either "Women's" or "Human rights in India". However, this article is not ready for the main space. Every statement made in this article needs to come from some cited source. When in doubt, put a citation at the end of every sentence! Also, the sources cannot be self-published by the agency managing the schemes. They have to come from a journalist, researcher, newspaper, or some third-party. I like the idea of this article a lot. Move it to User:Commons sibi's userspace, see if that person or anyone else would develop it, then hopefully if sources are included then it can go live. This is a great idea for an article and I know lots of sources exist. Blue Rasberry (talk) 13:36, 1 August 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, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 07:14, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 03:30, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Gary Streiner[edit]

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

Non-notable individual lacking Ghits and GNEWS of substance. Fails WP:BIO and other notability subcats. reddogsix (talk) 15:37, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:56, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:56, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The individual in question was directly involved with the creation of the notable film 'Night of The Living Dead' in both a technical capacity and as an actor. Additionally the individual has also served as producer on one of George Romero's early films "Season of The Witch' and produced the Mirimax theatrical release 'Comedian' which starred Jerry Seinfeld. Streiner also produced the promotional screener for the Dreamworks feature film 'Bee Movie' which feature Jerry Seinfeld, Chris Rock and Steven Spielberg. Streiner is also featured prominently in number of 'Night of The Living Dead' related documentaries including 'One for The Fire' which was featured on the Dimension Extreme/Mirimax authorized release of 'Night of The Living Dead' and in 'Documentary of The Dead' a film examining the making of the original 'Night of The Living Dead.' Streiner is also the founder of the Living Dead Fest, a well known fan event held annually and was recently named to the board of directors of Pitsburgh's historic Hollywood Theater. To contend that Streiner somehow fails to meet the Wikipedia's notability requirement is frankly absurd. I would also note that the party who is behind the effort to have this entry deleted, user reddogsix has a history of filing chronic, hypervigilant and apparently frivolous requests of this sort as evidenced by the unusually excessive number of declined requests of this sort evidenced on his user page, so in this case, I would actually request that you consider the source and his apparent over-zealousness in lodging an excessive amount of baseless challenges of this sort. I would also point out that this page is a starter page and more cited information is being added regularly. (Sellpink (talk) 19:55, 13 July 2013 (UTC))[reply]

Comment - I suggest you focus on the task at hand - specifically showing how the article meets Wikipedia criteria for inclusion. Trying to focus on my actions will have no bearing on the AfD and whether the article survives. I also suggest you read WP:AFG and WP:UNCIVIL for guidance on how to interact with other Wikipedia editors.

The article fails to meet WP:BIO or any other notability guidelines. In order to meet notability guidelines, the article must be supported by verifiable, independent, secondary resources - something this article fails to do. Additionally, notability is not inherited from one notable subject to another non-notable subject. Working as a sound engineer does not automatically make him a major contributor to the movie - I don't recall the movie being remembered or notable for its sound. After you read the material I suggested concerning the quality of resources you have any specific questions, please feel free to let me know and I will try to help you make sense of the guidelines. reddogsix (talk) 00:16, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Your reference to the article outlining civility is not needed. I never at any point was uncivil, insulting or discourteous towards you. Moving past that, I never contended, as you seem to infer, that simply being the sound engineer on the film conferred any particular notability on the subject entry, but that the totality of his achievements including that would seem to meet standard for inclusion, including his role of producer of major motion pictures, his direct involvement in the promotion of Dreamworks film Bee Movie, his being featured as an interview subject in relevant 'Night of The Living Dead' related documentaries, his founding of the well known Living Dead Fest and his appointment to the board of directors of the Hollywood Theater. I will attempt to add more relevant and sourced information to further establish his notability. Thank you! (Sellpink (talk) 01:42, 14 July 2013 (UTC))[reply]

Comment - If you have any questions, please feel free to let me know. reddogsix (talk) 02:04, 14 July 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, Michaelzeng7 (talk) 19:04, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - as currently written, the article is in poor shape, and poorly sourced, but in theory could be improved. I looked at IMdB, and Steiner is listed as one of two sound engineers. His own IMdB page lists only a handful of credits. Normally that would not be enough to pass WP:CREATIVE. However, if more sources of reliable types could be found and added to the article, showing significant references to him, then he may pass general notability. For example, there are many books and magazines in which he is mentioned. As it stands now, it would likely be deleted. Bearian (talk) 16:26, 23 July 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, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 07:13, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Right now, all I see is that he was the sound engineer on a cult film. This has led to him being mentioned very briefly in a reliable source or two - not enough to establish notability. Unless someone comes up with more than this, I don't see why a unique article is deserved. Nwlaw63 (talk) 13:55, 2 August 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 Mark Arsten (talk) 02:59, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Vanu Bose[edit]

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

Previously CSDed article, template removed without explanation by IP with six edits at the time. Non-notable person, and a case of WP:NOTINHERITED. The subject of this article does not meet GNG on his own, and being the son of a notable person does not confer such status. MSJapan (talk) 15:05, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:51, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:51, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: His work is widely mentioned in several books and newspaper articles.Malaiya (talk)

Comment - "His work" is not the issue. The issue is whether or not the subject is notable enough as an individual to merit a biographical article. If it is rather his company that is notable, policy states companies neither inherit nor confer notability on individuals. So would his work matter if it had stayed a thesis and had never been commercialized? In short, what is the underlying generator of notability surrounding this individual? MSJapan (talk) 14:56, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

May I suggest keeping what I had added so that others can make their own decision? Thanks.

He is known for his contributions to software defined radio ^[1]^[2]. It is based on the work done by him at MIT, incidentally in the lab founded by his father Amar Bose.

Malaiya (talk)

Keep per Malaiya - convincing and demonstrated with sources. In ictu oculi (talk) 03:00, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

References[edit]

^ Software Defined Radio: Enabling Technologies, Wiley Series in Software Radio Editor Walter H.W. Tuttlebee Publisher John Wiley & Sons, 2003, p. 309
^ Smart solutions, ROHINI MOHAN, Hindu, Mar 01, 2005 http://www.hindu.com/thehindu/mp/2005/03/01/stories/2005030100760100.htm

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Michaelzeng7 (talk) 19:05, 20 July 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, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 07:12, 2 August 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 Beef (film). Mark Arsten (talk) 03:12, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Beef IV[edit]

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

Fails WP:NOTFILM as this failed to receive reliable coverage in third party sources. Beerest355 Talk 00:16, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:26, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect, partial merge to Beef (film). Allow it to spin back out if/when sources are brought forward to meet WP:NF. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 05:51, 13 July 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, Michaelzeng7 (talk) 19:08, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:MOVIE. Beef (film) appears non-notable also; its only reference is a dead link. Miniapolis 14:42, 31 July 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, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 07:10, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 08:29, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Beef (film), which is notable[37][38]. But this sequel not so much. --Colapeninsula (talk) 09:23, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. postdlf (talk) 00:09, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Atlético Pucallpa[edit]

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

PROD was contested. Reason: may be notable.

This club is fairly young. It was founded in 2008 and started competing in its local district league which is how all newly-found Peruvian clubs start. Since its foundation it has played at an amateur level. Only when achieving promotion to the first division (by winning the Copa Perú) does a club become professional. This club has not achieved this. Only record of participation is in 2010. Page has no updates on latest season and may be inactive. Claimed official website is a blog that has not been updated since 2011 [39]. Club's activities are not covered in other sources and thus fails WP:GNG. The Copa Perú is not a domestic cup like the FA Cup. It is purely a tournament for promotion to the first division, so participation in this competition does not guarantee notability. MicroX (talk) 06:40, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Peru-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 08:38, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 08:38, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:31, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Professional status is not a requirement for notability of a football club. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:29, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - while Phil Bridger is 100% correct in saying a football club does not need to be professional to be considered notable, a club does have to meet WP:GNG and there is no evidence that this club does. Giant Snowman 08:25, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per GS. My understanding for amateur clubs is that they essentially have to be playing in the top flight of national competition in order to be assumed notable. Fenix down (talk) 11:22, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails both WP:FOOTYN and WP:GNG. --ArsenalFan700 (talk) 21:46, 9 August 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 Shakespeare Fellowship. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:53, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Brief Chronicles[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Brief Chronicles is a "peer-reviewed journal" created to promote a fringe theory. The article about it was created by the editor of the journal, Roger Stritmatter, after the publication of the first issue, and was nominated for deletion the same day. After a discussion dominated by Dr Stritmatter's own lengthy comments, the nomination was closed with no consensus. Three years later, there are zero third-party sources. This publication is not notable enough to have an article separate from Shakespeare Fellowship. Delete. - Cal Engime (talk) 04:40, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 08:39, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 08:40, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Undecided. This is problematic. On one hand, the journal exists, though it is misrepresented in the description. On the other hand, it's pretty non-notable, its only mention in scholarly literature to point out that it's a fringe journal. On the third hand, we have pages for such ridiculousness as the Declaration of Reasonable Doubt, whose only reason for notability that I can tell is its promoters keep shoving it in the face of Shakespeareans every time they get a chance, mostly on their own websites and internet comment boards. Any meaningful rewrite will creep towards its own POV, as these pages, if unwatched, have a tendency to do. Maybe create a List of fringe promotional journals and include it? Tom Reedy (talk) 04:48, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think a paragraph or two on periodicals in the Oxfordian theory article would give due weight, though it should be a higher priority to cover The Elizabethan Review (which at least had the distinction of an appreciative citation in Orgel's Oxford edition of The Winter's Tale), and anything that might go back to the days of Looney and Greenwood—you and Paul know more than I do about the history of this. As for the Declaration, WP:OTHERCRAP just shows that more than one article has to go, but that article cites coverage in major news sources and a book from a university press. I do see a lot of overlap between that page and List of Oxfordian theory supporters. Anything we can do about that? - Cal Engime (talk) 06:03, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I edited out the ostentatious self-important promotion. See what you think. (The info box was superfluous; the article is a stub. Tom Reedy (talk) 05:06, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I restored the infobox. Journal articles, whether a stub or not, should have an infobox, which contains bibliographic info not otherwise available. As I see no evidence of independent notability, the journal does not appear to meet either WP:GNG or WP:NJournals. Merge to Shakespeare Fellowship (including the infobox) seems like an acceptable solution, changing the current article into a redirect to the appropriate section in the article on the Fellowship, to maintain editing history. --Randykitty (talk) 07:11, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I cut it because "Shakespeare authorship question" is not a discipline, academic or otherwise. Tom Reedy (talk) 18:18, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Then the solution is to replace that with an appropriate discipline, not removing the whole thing... --Randykitty (talk) 18:58, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Is fringe theory a discipline? Tom Reedy (talk) 20:10, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The field listed was originally English literature, but Dr Stritmatter strongly preferred interdisciplinary studies (and argued at AfD that the editorial board's lack of English scholars didn't matter because it's an interdisciplinary journal, not an English journal). I don't think an infobox is needed for a non-notable fringe journal. - Cal Engime (talk) 20:42, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Shakespeare Fellowship. It doesn't really meet WP:NJournals, but it does exist, so its own section in the SF article should meet the needs of readers (and I'd say without the info box, since it's not really an academic journal according to the WP definition). Tom Reedy (talk) 03:24, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:52, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Volunteer Center of Silicon Valley[edit]

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

I found only insignificant coverage. Fails WP:ORG. SL93 (talk) 04:13, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. SL93 (talk) 04:15, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. SL93 (talk) 04:15, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - agree this the comments above. If this is notable it needs dramatically expanding. Verdict78 (talk) 15:38, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:28, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete It actually gets a ton of mentions in the press [40] but nothing significant - more along the lines of "event organized by the Volunteer Center of Silicon Valley". I am open to changing my mind if somebody can find significant coverage. --MelanieN (talk) 01:04, 4 August 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. Stifle (talk) 19:03, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Texts from Bennett[edit]

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

unpublished book. Does publicity equal notability? DGG ( talk ) 03:50, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 08:43, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 08:43, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep Seems sort of notable as a blog per WP:WEB with a surprising amount of mainstream coverage in Washington Post[41], New York Observer, and other sources[42][43][44][45]. I'm not entirely sure if all the sources on the article are reliable (Smoking Gun, Gawker, Huffington Post) but this does seem to meet the generous requirements of WP:WEB or WP:GNG. --Colapeninsula (talk) 09:34, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think this should be kept! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.46.134.17 (talk) 21:10, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Per coverage in reliable sources provided above. STATic message me! 12:53, 3 August 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. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:52, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Diane Lockward[edit]

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

Non-notable poet. Her award, the Quentin R. Howard Poetry Prize, is similarly unknown. Jackmcbarn (talk) 01:50, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - not voting here at present, but the AfD debate was blanked by User:Deeward0807, whose edits have all been related to this article. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 14:20, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:CREATIVE. Makes claims enough to avoid being a speedy delete, but no genuinely substantial claim of notability. Also appears to be a COI/spam issue. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:18, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:27, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Its quality is very low. Banhtrung1 (talk) 01:15, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:27, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:27, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Article has been revised according to Wikipedia guidelines. References have been added for verifiability. New information has been added to support notability.Deeward0807 (talk) 19:02, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Absolutely no outside sources to support notability. Article has been created and modified exclusively by Deeward0807, who is the sole proponent of keeping it and has not edited any articles other that this one, providing a clear case of WP:SPA. Factchecker25 (talk) 14:35, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Neither conflict of interest, nor single purpose accounts represent valid reasons for deletion although they do indicate greater scrutiny needs to be made of the article and referencing. Lockward has been reviewed in reliable sources. The Harvard Review has published a review of Temptation by Water. From AL.com, we have another review. Inlcuded in this book from Penguin Books. -- Whpq (talk) 16:28, 31 July 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, Michaelzeng7 (talk) 03:20, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ Article is no longer an orphan as outside sources link to it. Additional references provided and links added. ISBNs added to book titles. Other editors have contributed. Deeward0807 (talk) 19:29, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You can't vote twice, so I struck the keep here. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 20:07, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Multiple reliable source cover the subject in-depth.[46][47][48][49] Chatham Courier called her a "renowned poet".[50]. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 03:33, 10 August 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 close. No need to let this disruptive nomination go any further. Non-admin closure. Nate • (chatter)

Hatfield–McCoy feud[edit]

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

Textbook example of WP:CRYSTAL and failing WP:NOTABLE. [citation needed] 02:54, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy close. Quit wasting everybody's time. Clarityfiend (talk) 03:33, 2 August 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. Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 11:19, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temagami diamond mine[edit]

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

As I have said on the article's talk page, I did a quick Google search and found nothing about a diamond mine in the Temagami area. As a local resident, it is safe for me to say this article is a hoax and should be deleted. If this "diamond mine" was one of the largest in Canada and in the world it would surely be notable, but the lack of reliable sources contradicts that claim and everything else in this article. The article's creator (User:Bine Mai) originally used this as a source but does not support the content in the article. Volcanoguy 02:17, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I can't say for certain that this is an intentional hoax, but I can say that no reliable sources seem to mention the existence of this supposed mine. Nwlaw63 (talk) 05:36, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 08:56, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 08:57, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Hard to say much about intent with a substub like this, but this seems to confuse a couple of properties. There was a Temagami Mine that operated until the 1970s but did not produce diamonds. There is the very large Victor Diamond Mine, but it is a considerable distance to the northwest and is in no way associated with Temagami. And there is the North Temamami Diamond Property, part of the Lake Timiskaming kimberlite field and an area under consideration for future development (with some survey mines already established), but no large operating diamond mine in any sense. Whatever the goal was here, the result is an article for a subject that does not exist. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 20:27, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The author appears to have written other dubious mine articles. Check out it's contributions. Volcanoguy 10:13, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. There's a whole lot of very bad, and frequently demonstrably incorrect content associated with this user. I'm not sure what the best venue is for raising the issue, but there's a lot of cleanup needed here. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 15:34, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The source that was cited for the article certainly demonstrates that there is exploration of possible diamond deposits in the Temagami area, but it absolutely, unequivocally fails to demonstrate that there's any active diamond mine. (And I grew up in Sudbury, to boot, so if there were actually a diamond mine in Temagami I'd know almost as much about it as Volcanoguy would.) Delete; until such time as there's actually a mine in actual operation, the correct place for any Wikipedia content about this would be Lake Timiskaming kimberlite field rather than a standalone article. Bearcat (talk) 07:34, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There is talk of prospecting and plenty of market speculation but to date no producing mine. Atrian (talk) 18:57, 5 August 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 Valeria (gens)#Origin. (non-admin closure) Michaelzeng7 (talk) 16:55, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Valerius Volesus[edit]

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

This person is not notable. Nothing is known of him, except that he is presumed to be a descendant of an earlier Volesus in the time of Romulus, and was the father of three early figures in the Roman Republic. All of this information is already covered in the articles on his ancestor, his children, and the gens Valeria. Also, his name was Volesus Valerius, not Valerius Volesus. The use of Volesus or Volusus as a surname in this gens dates to his sons, two of whom apparently adopted it in honor of their father. But as nothing is known about Volesus other than his name and relationship to other members of the gens, this article isn't necessary. P Aculeius (talk) 01:46, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As impatient as I am at the moment with technical procedure that occludes utility, I still feel obliged to point out that what you probably want is a redirect to Valeria (gens)#Origin, not an actual deletion of the page. In which case, you could probably just be bold and do that. I would certainly support such an action. Cynwolfe (talk) 16:19, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- That sounds reasonable, Cynwolfe. I'll defer to your judgment in this, but it may take a day or two for me to get to it. P Aculeius (talk) 05:59, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - What I meant was, in case my tone was off, if you come upon similar things that are unreferenced, you could probably spare yourself the drag of a formal procedure, and try redirecting first. If there's an objection, then you can propose a deletion. Have no idea whether I've just advised you to do something that would be frowned up, but it seems in keeping with "be bold". Cynwolfe (talk) 16:34, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with your comment that the name should be Volesus Valerius, not the other way around. Thanks for pointing it out. I also agree with Cynwolfe's redirect suggestion. I created the page because a number of articles already linked to the page, and I had enough material to create a stub. I was hoping to find additional information about Volesus from other sources but I think you are right - there is nothing more to add.--Urg writer (talk) 22:03, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus? So far, that seems to be a consensus for redirecting: the figure is seminal and will be mentioned often (as Urg Writer points out), but in ways that make him integral to the gens and its origins, not so much as somebody who could generate an independent article. Cynwolfe (talk) 15:48, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:25, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:25, 27 July 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, Theopolisme (talk) 01:49, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 09:31, 2 August 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. Stifle (talk) 19:03, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Chamber of Commerce and Industry France Moldova[edit]

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

First, what exactly is this Chamber? It's one of around 80 chapters of the Union of French Chambers of Commerce and Industry Abroad. The Union doesn't have an article on en.wiki, but probably should. However, I think it's a bit of a stretch to have articles for its individual chapters, since we don't usually do that for NGOs. (Even for Amnesty International, which is about 100 times bigger (3 million versus 30,000), we only have articles on five national chapters.) We're not told how big the Moldova chapter is, but really, how many French businesses can there be in the poorest country in Europe, with a GDP of $7 billion, that does 2% of its trade with France? Five? Ten?

Second, about the sourcing, let's start by keeping in mind that anything foreign, especially from the developed world, that touches on Moldova, gets an inordinate amount of attention within Moldova. I'm not saying that something notable in Moldova isn't notable for Wikipedia (Călin Vieru or Bravicea are notable only within Moldova, but clearly also notable by our standards), just that we should compensate accordingly. So what do we have in terms of sources? Well, mainly passing mentions in interviews, news briefs, press releases, puff pieces, that sort of thing. Not much in the way of in-depth coverage.

Finally, we cannot fail to mention that the article's author is Raphaelpouget. His is, of course, a single-purpose account. Interestingly, there is someone named Raphael Pouget who just happens to be... "Intern: Club France - CCI France Moldavie". The same guy? You decide. Anyway, if he is their intern, he's a diligent one, having already created similar pages on fr.wiki and ro.wiki, and apparently intending to do the same for ru.wiki.

Oh, and one more thing. On the talk page, M. Pouget asks, in essence, "what about Moldovan–American Chamber of Commerce"? WP:WAX aside, I think that's a valid question. That is an equally non-notable institution, and its article ought to be deleted forthwith, as should the cloyingly promotional biography of its founder, Mark A. Meyer. - Biruitorul ^Talk 16:37, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Moldova-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:33, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:33, 26 July 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, Theopolisme (talk) 01:46, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:ORG. coverage is mostly primary. LibStar (talk) 02:41, 7 August 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) 07:20, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Tiffany Tyler (pornographic actress)[edit]

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

No reliable hits for this porn actress. Her only nomination is for a scene, so this fails WP:PORNBIO. Beerest355 Talk 01:45, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:10, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:10, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:10, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:GNG. Lacks substantial coverage by reliable sources. Searches get passing mentions and press releases. Fails PORNBIO with only a scene-related award nomination. • Gene93k (talk) 02:23, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The scene nomination isn't even true (this is why it's best to get nomination information directly from the porn award websites rather than from IMDb). Erpert ^{Who is this guy? | Wanna talk about it?} 08:26, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Concur with nom. Fails WP:PORNBIO with merely a scene nomination.(apparently) Finnegas (talk) 12:16, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Looking over her bio, there doesn't seem to be anything exceptional about this actress. There are many other pornstars with similar careers who do not have Wikipedia profiles. Doesn't satisfy WP:NOTE. Newjerseyliz (talk) 18:08, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom's sound analysis. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 17:13, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. postdlf (talk) 00:08, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Joel Goldman[edit]

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

Not a particularly notable author. The sources given seem to be either promotional, trivial mentions or just fairly insignificant local news coverage. Other news and book sources I found just had trivial passing mentions. Might be "big in Kansas" but doesn't, in my view, have sufficient notability on a national level for an article, I'm afraid. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 13:29, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

weak keep An moderately notable author. His various books have had very different receptions: As shown by Worldcat Shakedown is held in 307 libraries & published by a respectable independent publisher & was reviewed by Publishers Weekly; , Last Witness by 257 but shows no reviews, , ( with reviews for Deadlocked, and 2 reviews for Motion to Kill; scattered titles have been translated. Thjis is rather low for mysteries, but much more than the sort of author we usuallly find ourselves deleting here. 'DGG (at NYPL) (talk) 22:12, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:31, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:31, 19 July 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, Michaelzeng7 (talk) 18:05, 26 July 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, Theopolisme (talk) 01:43, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The author does look notable, after looking on Google Verdict78 (talk) 15:50, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. JohnCD (talk) 15:47, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Clutch (sports)[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

It appears at WP:Articles_for_deletion/Clutch_(sports) that consensus was reached in 2009 to delete this article, and it doesn't appear to have gone through any deletion review or substantial changes to alter that conclusion. I'm a bit new to the process, but I honestly can't even tell that it was ever deleted per the AfD consensus. Regardless, it remains a poorly written article that lacks neutrality and is composed primarily of original research. I could imagine a proper article on the topic, but it would be little more than a dictionary definition inviting further non-neutral editing and original research. Given the lack of progress the article has made since the original deletion discussion I think it is clear that it should be removed. Thomas Craven (talk) 20:55, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:30, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:31, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The page appears to have been re-created in December 2009, but I can't find any deletion review, either. The pre-2009 history appears to be intact. Cnilep (talk) 03:32, 27 July 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, Theopolisme (talk) 01:42, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I'll bite. Delete per the consensus at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Clutch (sports) in 2009, particularly suggestions from Chzz and Rlendog that the article (now as then) consists primarily of original research. Currently a search of Gbooks and Gscholar finds only a handful of what appear to be self-published books, along with lots of false positives (e.g. "The white linen clutch sports and adorable fox that's stitched with sparkly metallic embroidery floss."). I am less persuaded by 2009 arguments that the list of "great ones" is a personal attack, but it is personal opinion unsupported by reliable sources. Cnilep (talk) 00:51, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This is mainly original research. Terms like this belong on Wiktionary...that is, without all of the original research. T C N7JM 18:15, 8 August 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 List of stars in Aquila. Stifle (talk) 19:03, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Gliese 726[edit]

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

Doesn't seem to meet WP:NASTRO. StringTheory11 (t • c) 00:24, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:31, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ Merge/Redirect per S Marshal's proposal below: only brief mentions and data found. Praemonitus (talk) 01:22, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator. I was unable to find the nontrivial publications about this object required for WP:NASTRO #3 and it doesn't seem to pass any of the other criteria either. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:01, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Smerge to List of stars in Aquila. It doesn't pass NASTRO, but I'm not comfortable with completely deleting a K-class star less than 50 light years from Earth; this shouldn't be a redlink. If it wasn't so close then I'd be more relaxed about deleting it.—S Marshall T/C 23:45, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- That seems a reasonable option, per WP:NASTHELP. Praemonitus (talk) 19:56, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. JohnCD (talk) 15:47, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Victoria Masonic Temple[edit]

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

Does not meet GNG, and notability has not been established; in 2.5 years there has been no substantial content to address anything more than existence (which is not notability). The article as it stands is so minimal as to be a dicdef. MSJapan (talk) 00:12, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sri Lanka-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:30, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:30, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The nom has simply given article improvement issues, not actual notability ones. Historic building in Colombo and arguably the most significant Masonic Temple in all of Sri Lanka. The Sunday Times did a very extensive article on this building [51]. (This signifying passing WP:GNG was already in the article when the nom AfD'd this.) A guide book from 1906 devoted a section to it. [52] It's even on one of the Sri Lankan stamps. Topic on national stamp=notability. --Oakshade (talk) 03:48, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I did read the material before I nominated it, and I do not appreciate the insinuation otherwise. If you read the article, on the other hand, you would see that it's not really very "extensive" at all; several paragraphs are opinions of the author, not facts about the building. The guidebook is a tertiary source, which does not replace a secondary, and there is absolutely nothing in Wikipedia's notability guidelines that equates being on a stamp with notability. So, you've got one source, and GNG is not met by one source. MSJapan (talk) 04:10, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You made zero reference to the The Sunday Times article in your nom statement which was a glaring omission for your case of "Does not meet GNG" so it appears you didn't read (or perhaps notice) it. The Sunday Times is an in-depth coverage on the temple. WP:GNG does not prejudice against opinion coverage, whether it be reviews, criticisms or op-ed peices. The Sunday Times article could be entitled "VICTORIA MASONIC TEMPLE SUCKS AND HERE'S WHY" and it would still be considered significant coverage per WP:GNG. As for the book A Guide to Colombo, you claim it's tertiary source? Do you have any evidence the book was published by the temple or even any part of the Masonic Order, or is this attack on the source your original research? --Oakshade (talk) 05:24, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I don't have to make reference to sources in a nomination, only the lack thereof, which I did. I also never claimed the article was unsourced; I claimed it did not meet GNG. WP:GNG reads If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article or stand-alone list. Note the plural sources; not "if some guy wrote about it once." Therefore, my nomination indicates that there are not enough sources to make this building notable. An almanac, guidebook, or encyclopedia is by definition a tertiary source, and they are not the same as SPS. Also, that guidebook has three sentences about the building; the book itself is over 150 pages long. Sounds like a trivial mention to me. MSJapan (talk) 15:17, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You admit now you made reference to "lack theorof" reliable sources when there was one already in the article. Bad AfD form. "Tertiary" is a broad term (uh, Encyclopedias not secondary sources?), but you claimed specifically the guide book from 1906 is not a secondary source. Again, do you have any evidence the book was published by the temple or even any part of the Masonic Order or is that your blind speculation? We're waiting. --Oakshade (talk) 18:25, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete One reliable source just doesn't seem like enough to establish notability. Nwlaw63 (talk) 05:27, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. As Oakshade says, the sources provided + national stamp = notable landmark building. --Arxiloxos (talk) 06:03, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Again, a stamp does not confer notability. I want to see that guiideline if it does. Secondly, a notable landmark building is one that is on a list of other such recognized buildings. There's paperwork and other things involved. It's not because somebody said so.

Although a stamp is not "coverage" the fact that a stamp is issued with a building bang in the middle of the stamp means that it is common sense that the building is notable. JASpencer (talk) 20:17, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. More RS available [53], [54]. Cossde (talk) 13:18, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - one is about a blood drive and the other about a fundraiser to be held on the grounds. There's no content about the building. It's pertinent because it mentions the name of the building once? Sorry, that's also trivial coverage. MSJapan (talk) 15:17, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per RS in article and this one I just added: Twentieth Century Impressions of Ceylon:Its History, People, Commerce, Industries, and Resources. There's description of the construction and opening on pages 419-420 and a nice public domain photograph on page 414. 24.151.116.25 (talk) 16:10, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As well as the reliable sources that have now been shown, we also have the building on a stamp. If it makes it on to a stamp or a banknote then it's probably notable. JASpencer (talk) 20:13, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Week Keep... I would have said delete, but the coverage in "Twentieth Century Impressions of Ceylon" is more than just trivial. That said... while there is enough coverage (barely) to establish notability, there really isn't enough coverage to allow the article to grow beyond a stub. The article really should be merged into an article on a broader topic (something like Colonial era architecture in Ceylon)... there are probably other articles that could be merged as well. Blueboar (talk) 14:19, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Per Oakshade.Pectore^talk 03:35, 9 August 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--Ymblanter (talk) 07:30, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Western World (ship)[edit]

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

Notability is not explained. A cursory glance at the google results does not show anything to indicate notability. ~~WP:MEMORIAL.~~ ^King Jakob _C2 00:07, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:29, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:29, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. A search on Google Books and Google News shows sufficent information to establish notability. Proper following of WP:BEFORE requires more than a "cursory glance" at WP:GHITS; nominating the article within an hour of its creation is somewhat WP:BITEy as well. (Also citing WP:MEMORIAL is somewhat odd seeing as nobody was lost in the wreck.) - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:55, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@The Bushranger: Um? I just searched on Google Books and Google News and couldn't find one relevant book/news source. ^King Jakob _C2 01:35, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You need to use more specific search terms. "Western World"+ship+"New Jersey"+1853 finds sources. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:56, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Seems notable enough. Johnbod (talk) 17:27, 5 August 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.