< 5 August	7 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 speedy keep per WP:SK#1. Nomination withdrawn by nominator with no delete !votes present. (Non-administrator closure.) Northamerica1000^(talk) 06:56, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Clear Paddock Creek[edit]

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

Unsourced, no clear notion of notability, no assertion of importance. Razor flame 23:39, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:50, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - It being a geographical feature is an assertion of notability. A geographical feature (see WP:NGEO) that has received a fair amount of coverage beyond statistics and coordinates, generally for its rehabilitation. [1][2]and it appears a seven page chapter is devoted to this creek in this book. It also appears Environmental Trust (New South Wales) wrote an entire book on this creek. [3][4]. The Fairfield, New South Wales City Council also devoted public significant coverage to this. [5] It was inappropriate to nominate this article for deletion within one day of its creation [6] and is a case of WP:BITE. --Oakshade (talk) 02:28, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Oakshade said it all. Geographic features described in reliable sources are presumed to be notable. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:57, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- As per the above, I'd like to withdraw this nomination, if possible. Razor flame 04:25, 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. --BDD (talk) 22:57, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Skolmen[edit]

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

No indication of importance, no references, severe lack of context and content GregJackP Boomer! 22:47, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 23:03, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. DavidLeighEllis (talk) 23:51, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. If the name is as rare as the article claims, then establishing notability would require extraordinary evidence. Yet even the author admits to a dearth of sources. —Psychonaut (talk) 17:36, 13 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. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:47, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

List of La Liga players[edit]

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

A list that is potentially unmanageable and far too long to be a useful addition. Fancruft. The Banner talk 22:39, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 23:02, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 23:02, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 23:02, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 23:05, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:09, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and introduce some inclusion criteria (i.e. over 300 appearances or something) so that it is along the lines of List of Premier League players, List of Ligue 1 players and others. Giant Snowman 09:23, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per GS, don't agree with accusations of cruft, it is a listing where a player has either played in La Liga or not, so is finite and objective, but is inherently unweildy. I have trimmed it to players with +300 appearances, although am happy for this to be expanded to say 250? Fenix down (talk) 12:09, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I have added fancruft due to the column "Region". But that could also be just non-relevant and/or WP:OR. The Banner talk 12:22, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - Not cruft per se, more likely to be regional nationalism as is popular in Spain (but 100% not suitable for Wikipedia). Giant Snowman 12:24, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - A list of this kind would be unmanageable if there were no cut-off point but all three articles put 300 as the cut-off point. So List of La Liga players with 300 matches or more accurately describes the list and it just seems to approach WP:LISTCRUFT. --MicroX (talk) 07:09, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Isn't that more of a move rather than delete? The article has already been trimmed to 300+ appearances. Fenix down (talk) 07:50, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Lists do not need the criteria specified in the title. Giant Snowman 08:26, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Just keep it to a specific criteria, like 250 appearances. Also, try and cleaning the list a little. Add some pictures, add some templates. Add some rules even. Don't just make the page look disorganized. --ArsenalFan700 (talk) 21:33, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Can be made discriminate. DavidLeighEllis (talk) 23:56, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This list seems reasonable, although it needs sources. Jakejr (talk) 01:08, 12 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) 19:46, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

KISS-FM (brand)[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Last AFD relisted twice with no voting whatsoever, closed as "no consensus" with no prejudice against a speedy renom. So let's try this again. Nothing but a list of stations that call themselves "Kiss". Any sign of notability, such as the lawsuits, is completely unsourced. Article has been tagged for improvement since 2007 and nothing's happened. A search on Google Books found only directory listings and copies of the Wikipedia article. To clarify the argument a little, what little coverage I've found is about individual stations, not the brand as a whole. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 22:16, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 22:35, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 22:36, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 22:36, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. How this ubiquitous brand has developed around the country, and the various lawsuits and disputes surrounding same, strikes me as potentially a notable topic. Here is an article giving some substantial background on the national scope of the brand issue (focused on a dispute in Milwaukee but also covering disputes in Bakersfield, Chicago, and Omaha): [7] Here's one about Clear Channel's multimarket dispute with Cumulus [8]. There's sources in the article about Cleveland and more are evident at GNews. Having said that, it's worth noting that there's an existing (and extremely necessary) disambiguation page for KISS FM. It may take some discussion to work out the best way to integrate the disambiguation function and substantive information, and I have some qualms about whether AfD is the best place to have that discussion. --Arxiloxos (talk) 23:16, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The previous AfD was closed as "no consensus" just over 2 hours ago. Let's not jump into another AfD so soon. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 23:27, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Even if the closer of the last AFD said "Closed with no prejudice against speedy renomination."? Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 00:04, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment (again) No, the article is not "completely unsourced", as TenPound would have you believe. I added two references verifying the Cleveland legal fight between Clear Channel and Radio One here -- both companies claimed the right to use the "Kiss" brand in Cleveland based on prior use at stations in the DC (Radio One) and Dallas (Clear Channel) markets. I would not at all be surprised if there is similar coverage from local media on the Chicago, DC, and Bakersfield cases. Levdr1lp / talk 16:25, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Levdr1 and last time around the ferris wheel. DavidLeighEllis (talk) 23:59, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Totally meaningless. Levdr1 did not say "keep", nor did anyone else in the last AFD. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 00:22, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There, now I've said it. Levdr1lp / talk 12:46, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Articles in Billboard and Wall Street Journal are two examples which discuss the national brand in some detail (i.e., its origins, the "McDonald's-like" consistency of its stations' logos and playlists with slight regional differences). Gong show 06:12, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Per Gongshow and per this, this and this (though that last one might be self-published, I can't tell), there's enough here to meet WP:GNG. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 11:55, 13 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) 19:45, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Institute for the International Education of Students[edit]

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

How is it that in the six years that this article has been in existence no-one has considered it notable enough to add independent references? — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 20:17, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 21:53, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 21:53, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 21:54, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Sources are only required for controversial statements or quotations. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a search engine. And AFD is not cleanup. Warden (talk) 22:23, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete There are no independent references whatsoever available to add. I spent an hour looking a while back--nothing. GNG is not passed in any way, nor would it be possible for the article to pass GNG with additional work. Jeremy112233 (talk) 13:58, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It is a bit strong to say "no independent references whatsoever available" - see the book and publication references that I added yesterday. As to whether these are sufficient to demonstrate WP:ORGDEPTH, that is a matter for discussion. AllyD (talk) 16:54, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep 63-year old educational institution with 36 campuses world-wide and 80,000+ alum. As a non-profit with international scope, I think it qualifies on the notability criteria. I assume it doesn't belong in the entry, but the IES-Beijing program was ranked as the #3 study abroad program world-wide in 2012 by Abroad 101, and #1 in Asia. Suzanneemerson (talk) 03:58, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep AFD is not cleanup. DavidLeighEllis (talk) 00:00, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, the nomination does not provide a policy-based reason for deletion, to the point where seafood seems in order, which is dissapointing from such an experienced editor. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:19, 13 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 per withdrawal, non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 22:18, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hell Yeah! (Black 'n Blue album)[edit]

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

Could not easily find WP:RSes to confirm notability. Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:04, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The band is notable, and there is coverage of the album from at least two reliable sources: [9], [10]. --Michig (talk) 20:43, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Saw the AllMusic review but had difficulty finding a second RS. Feel free to close nomination. Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:27, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 21:57, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oregon-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 21:58, 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. Monty ₈₄₅ 15:48, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Jeroninio Francisco Torquato Almeida[edit]

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

non notable in several different careers; promotional wordings; PR references DGG ( talk ) 19:28, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 19:53, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 19:53, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Just delete this promotionalism. Notable or not, there's hardly a single line of text in the article that's neutral. Not a shred of the article is worthy of preservation. DavidLeighEllis (talk) 02:06, 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 Vampire Plagues series. Since the edit history still exists, anyone is free merge however much they'd like to at any point, so long as they indicate as much in their edit summary. Mark Arsten (talk) 19:53, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

London 1850[edit]

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

If the series as a whole is not definitely notable, I doubt a single book of it is. James^x1 2345 16:27, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 01:00, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to article on series. Candleabracadabra (talk) 03:38, 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, Dusti^{*Let's talk!*} 18:52, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 20:00, 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 redirect to Geneva Business School. Since the edit history still exists, anyone is free merge however much they'd like to at any point, so long as they indicate as much in their edit summary. Mark Arsten (talk) 19:54, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

University of Business & Finance Switzerland[edit]

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

This university closed in 2010 - http://www.ubfs.ch/ - and is pretty obscure and non-notable. Andrewpmk | Talk 16:31, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 01:15, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Switzerland-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 01:15, 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, Dusti^{*Let's talk!*} 18:51, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/redirect a brief mention of its history to Geneva Business School of which it is now a part. The Whispering Wind (talk) 00:36, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - Should go to Geneva Business School with the information merged onto that page. Caffeyw (talk) 17:56, 14 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) 02:39, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Matthew Morgan (musician)[edit]

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

Reason Barney the barney barney (talk) 16:38, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This article appears to be by his brother Davey Morgan aka user:sycondavey, per WP:COI. The subject doesn't appear to meet [WP:MUSICIAN]]. Barney the barney barney (talk) 16:38, 30 July 2013 (UTC). Article is an orphan (excepting Matthew Morgan disambiguation page) Barney the barney barney (talk) 16:42, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, not notable. NawlinWiki (talk) 16:55, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 01:16, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 01:17, 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, Dusti^{*Let's talk!*} 18:51, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Lacks coverage in independent reliable sources. duffbeerforme (talk) 05:10, 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 delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:40, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Gliese 556[edit]

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

Doesn't seem to meet WP:NASTRO. StringTheory11 (t • c) 17:19, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Gong show 18:43, 30 July 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) 21:20, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/Redirect to List of stars in Boötes per WP:NASTHELP: barely mentioned in scholarly publications. Doesn't satisfy WP:GNG. Praemonitus (talk) 02:00, 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, Dusti^{*Let's talk!*} 18:50, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. DavidLeighEllis (talk) 22:45, 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. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:41, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Gliese 604[edit]

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

Doesn't seem to meet WP:NASTRO. StringTheory11 (t • c) 17:24, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Gong show 18:43, 30 July 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) 21:22, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/Redirect to List of stars in Norma per WP:NASTHELP: no in-depth sources; fails to satisfy WP:GNG. Praemonitus (talk) 01:58, 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, Dusti^{*Let's talk!*} 18:50, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. DavidLeighEllis (talk) 22:45, 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. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:41, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Gliese 613[edit]

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

Doesn't seem to meet WP:NASTRO. StringTheory11 (t • c) 17:29, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Gong show 18:43, 30 July 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) 21:24, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/Redirect to List of stars in Norma per WP:NASTHELP: it has a couple of mentions, but no significant studies published. Praemonitus (talk) 01:55, 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, Dusti^{*Let's talk!*} 18:49, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. DavidLeighEllis (talk) 22:44, 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. --BDD (talk) 23:02, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

KwaMoja[edit]

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

Article was PRODed, the PROD was endorsed, and then the PROD was removed by the article creator without addressing the concern. The software still appears to be non-remarkable and I am unable to find any significant independent reliable source coverage to establish notability. ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 17:35, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The article was created with back-dated maintenance templates, so it's likely a recreation under a different name. Also, Delete. Jackmcbarn (talk) 17:41, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 01:19, 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, Dusti^{*Let's talk!*} 18:49, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No indication of notability. Article lacks 3rd party RS refs. A search reveals only blog posts about the software and user-editable sites, no RS coverage. Page was created by an SPA as possibly promotional.Dialectric (talk) 01:54, 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 delete. There seems to be a consensus here that he fails the WP:PROF guideline. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:38, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Amit Mahipal (physician)[edit]

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

Can we check whether this meets WP:PROF? It's not obvious that it might. Barney the barney barney (talk) 18:49, 6 August 2013 (UTC) Barney the barney barney (talk) 18:49, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 20:01, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 20:01, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:01, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:01, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:01, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Probably delete Doesn't appear to meet WP:PROF: he's not a full professor; his role at the Moffitt Cancer Centre is senior but not top-level (as H. Lee Moffitt Cancer Center & Research Institute will show). Google Scholar returns few citations (3 co-authored papers with more than 10 cites). Google news search has him quoted a few times but no in-depth coverage of his own work. Regular Google search doesn't give much in the way of third-party coverage. I'm not an expert in medicine, but right now I can't see grounds for calling him notable. --Colapeninsula (talk) 10:14, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- per TOOSOON. He has the career track to likely be notable someday, but given the rank and years out of med school, needs a high level of external validation of notability, and it's not there yet. -- Michael Scott Cuthbert (talk) 23:57, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Thank you for raising this concern. I am the originator of this article, Jcmeberhard (talk) 19:07, 11 August 2013 (UTC). I study Medical sociology and evidenced based practice, and work with researchers and physicians on a weekly basis. Thus, although I am not a physician, my writing for Wikipedia is done with an audience of medical professionals and students in mind who would be searching for encyclopedic information on significant topics, clinical studies, and notable persons in their field. Mahipal fits this criteria (and Wikipedia's criteria) because he has conducted major clinical studies recognized as significant within medicine.[reply]

Amit Mahipal meets the notability criteria on several grounds. I will use the WP:PROF guidelines to make this argument, however I would like to point out that while the acronym for the WP notability page being referenced is "PROF", the actual name and purpose of this list of criteria is for "Academics"--which includes anyone who does research in a specific field of scientific or artistic inquiry--one does not need to be a "professor" to fit into this category of notable persons.

Doctor Mahipal is not a professor; He is the head of Clinical Research at Moffitt Cancer Center and a physician, who only serves as an assistant at the near by University. Even so, I believe that the WP:PROF criteria are the only notable persons criteria that fit professional researchers, as there are no criteria for medical notable persons specifically.

According to WP:PROF the person must meet one of nine criteria, of which, Dr. Mahipal meets the following:

1)The person's research has made significant impact in their scholarly discipline, broadly construed, as demonstrated by independent reliable sources....if the person has pioneered or developed a significant new concept, technique or idea, made a significant discovery or solved a major problem in their academic discipline.

I have made substantial revisions to Dr. Mahipal's article in order to better support the significance of his work via bibliographic references. I would be grateful if those participating in this discussion would take the time to read the first few paragraphs of the "Research" section of the article, with these changes. Hopefully, by including more contextual information about the medical discussion surrounding Mahipal's studies, the article will prove more useful to the broader Wikipedia community and incoming medical professionals.

While I realize that Google Scholar and news searches are the most accessible tools to the public for checking citations, as WP:PROF itself warns, these are not accurate tools for measuring the impact or index of academic articles. Both Web of Science and Scopus searches (listed/suggested by WP:PROF) will show that Dr. Mahipal is widely cited in the areas discussed in the article. I provided citations for these databases in my revisions to the article, and all the new citations I include themselves cite Dr. Mahipal's work. Also note that the citations I provide are only a handful of the dozens which cite him. If you were to ask a medical student or resident about lymph node biopsies, they would be able to tell you about the topic, and the role which researchers like Mahipal played in the recent rejection of lymphodectomies as a clinical practice. Mahipal's study, which was focused on the unnecessary morbidity of lymph node dissections, is cited consistently in every literature review on this topic (several of which I added as bibliographic references to the article). This is true, not only for his work in Lymph Node dissection, but also his study regarding the role of NSAIDs in cancer prevention, and biomarkers for cancer treatment.

Due to these realities, I believe that Dr. Mahipal fits the description provided on WP:PROF of someone who is widely recognized for his role in the pioneering and discovery of several significant ontological practices, reflected in the impact factor of the journals he has published in and the number of times his he is cited in key discussions and debates about medical standards. If there is any further information I can/need to provide to substantiate these claims, I would be happy to make the attempt.

Delete. A few cites found on GS but not enough for WP:Prof#1. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:38, 11 August 2013 (UTC).[reply]
Delete article does not make the case for WP:PROF. Logical Cowboy (talk) 00:25, 12 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 LaTeX#Compatibility. Mark Arsten (talk) 19:55, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

LaTeX2RTF[edit]

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

I found no notability for this software. Fails WP:N. SL93 (talk) 06:21, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 06:26, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment LaTeX2HTML falls into a similar category of lack of reliable sources. I'm not sure if even a merge to LaTeX is called for. --Colapeninsula (talk) 08:07, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No indication of notability. Article lacks 3rd party RS refs. A search reveals no RS coverage. Page was created by an SPA as possibly promotional.Dialectric (talk) 10:11, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to LaTeX#Compatibility. There are many sources out there describing LaTeX2RTF, but as typical with much open-source software, none of the sources I could find are the traditional, WP:RS reliable sources needed for notability. But LaTeX2RTF is a core program of most if not all TeX distributions; it is reasonable that users could search for this term. LaTeX2RTF is already mentioned in the LaTeX#Compatibility section, so a redirect seems appropriate. While the article was created by a not-quite SPA editor, that editor's last contribution to the article was in 2006 and other editors have worked in the article since then. --Mark viking (talk) 16:20, 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) 17:33, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep. It deserves it's own article. The software is over a decade old and is a established part of the LaTeX subsystem. It's a type of software which is not really discussed by anybody, so it will be difficult to establish standard sources. But nevertheless, since LaTeX is a standard in Academia, it's likely this software is very well used everywhere in the western world. I think it's clearly notable. scope_creep (talk) 16:20, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Merge/Redirect We have reliable sources, it is just that they are primary sources, and so don't satisfy WP:GNG. Arguing that this topic satisfies WP:N, as being "worthy of notice", might be done along with identifying good factoring as a desirable principle for the encyclopedia, perhaps better recognized among software design topics than in the general encyclopedia. The biggest problem with merge is that someone would need to do it, and we already have a working solution in place. Unscintillating (talk) 00:26, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. There are a couple similarly named LaTeX to RTF converters out there, and both of them have attracted coverage in digital typography journals such as TUGboat and The PracTeX Journal. ltx2rtf (by Fernando Dorner and Andreas Granzer) is the subject of a TUGboat article and (IIRC) has been cited from time to time thereafter, and latex2rtf (not sure of the authors) has been frequently mentioned in both journals, though I'm not sure about the extent of coverage. —Psychonaut (talk) 18:48, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/Redirect - Nothing notable/lacks RS for it's own article. Belongs on page about company or main product. Caffeyw (talk) 17:59, 14 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) 17:00, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

John Babcock (musician)[edit]

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

BLP without sourcing independent of the subject. Seems to be a session musician, may be notable but no indication. (COI editor has repeatedly removed maintenance templates keeping this article without proper BLP sourcing) Widefox; talk 13:07, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, all.

I'd like to clear up a few things, the first being the "close connection" issue. Regardless if I am related to the person in question, I try to maintain and keep the article current. I feel this is a needless concern and should be dismissed. The information in this article is without personal bias, or COI in this case, as all the information in the article is comprised of information previously provided from various sources, largely off the internet. Having that been said, it's highly unlikely that those secondary sources are available to be referenced on Wikipedia. I do understand the need for varying sources, though my hands are pretty much tied (at least for now).

I'd also like to point out that this article has been active for five years without issue (or need of deletion). People have viewed the article and even made edits such as updating links and making corrections. It has also proven useful for the person in question. In addition to that, I don't understand how the article features "intricate detail". The amount of information isn't a lot compared to many other articles. The information also helps in the notability department of which you're concerned, so any elaboration on what's excessive would be helpful.

I'd like to ask the probability of the article getting removed any time soon so I may document the information therein. I'd rather this article not be deleted abruptly, so let's try to reach a fair assessment beforehand. MegaMacX (talk) 20:04, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The issue is lack of notability - see WP:N - as in it doesn't have sources to meet WP:GNG / WP:BIO. Having a COI does not imply anything about your good intentions. You do have a COI (whether you accept it or not), and until now it has manifested itself when previously removing maintenance templates. Ironically, they aid other editors to see the lack of sources and help out. The standard for a WP:BLP is higher still than normal articles, so as you say, this article should not have existed for this long with such a lack of sources. Of course, find sources, else this just may appear like promotion and shouldn't be here. WP:ILIKEIT is an invalid reason to keep it. As the creator of the article, next time you maybe could draft in your own space - see WP:DRAFT, WP:AFC . As for preserving somewhere, feel free to read WP:DELETE (and WP:USERFY ) to inform yourself if worth taking this up with the closing admin. Widefox; talk 10:44, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 13:48, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 13:48, 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, Michaelzeng7 (talk) 17:27, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - It appears that Babcock is a working musician. It's great that he makes a living at it. But I don't see the coverage that establishes notability. The press clippings presented are without context. -- Whpq (talk) 16:39, 12 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. Ged UK 15:55, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Maxlite[edit]

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

Maxlite is a stub article that is written almost entirely as an advertisement with very little sources and one source written by Maxlite. It has seen no edits (until today) since 2011 and is an orphan. The only edit that was not a revert since 2011 was by a person who claimed to "represent MaxLite" and redid the entire article like an advertisement. MaxLite, as currently written, shows 4 sources, two of which are dead links (one being a link to a non-functioning MaxLite-run site). By not having significant coverage by reliable sources, Maxlite fails to meed the standard set by the notability guideline. 155blue (talk) 14:38, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Although there is a sprinkling of references in secondary sources (listing, e.g. Maxlite alongside other lighting manufacturers) the coverage is not broad and deep enough for this topic to reach the notability threshold. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 07:59, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 14:55, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 14:55, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

NOMINATOR COMMENT As of 17:42:21 (GMT) on 30 July 2013, the article had two sources, both coming from a website of MaxLite. See here for the revision referred to. 155blue (talk) 17:45, 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, Michaelzeng7 (talk) 17:26, 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. Monty ₈₄₅ 15:50, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Derek Murphy (actor)[edit]

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

No sources just links to casting pages and IMBD. Google news search brings us to the article and Google books isnt turning up anything. Article created by SPA. Murry1975 (talk) 14:55, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 15:04, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 15:04, 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, Michaelzeng7 (talk) 17:26, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Definitely fails WP:NACTOR with just a couple of minor credits. Clarityfiend (talk) 22:35, 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. Bearian (talk) 21:58, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Decorative Impressionism[edit]

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

Not a widely used term, nor a real art movement. Based on WP:SYNTHESIS. ~~As an example, a more credible article, based on Google hits, would be Reluctant Impressionism [11]. In other words, not good scholarship.~~ JNW (talk) 09:24, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Not a generally used critical term.TheLongTone (talk) 15:09, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:49, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - the term is [scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&q="Decorative+Impressionism"&btnG=&lr= used by scholar sources] (see ) with references to American authors like Frieseke, Chicago, discussed in the article, and several other "Decorative+Impressionism" books. Diego (talk) 21:34, 28 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) 17:52, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep Terminology appears to have attained some currency and coverage. If there is a debate about its appropriateness or scholarship that should be included in the article. Candleabracadabra (talk) 02:41, 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) 17:24, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 17:38, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep Seems to be a genuine term. Google books has several references to Frederick Carl Frieseke around 1911, 1913 and 1917, linking the term to Frieseke. It seems Christian Brinton was a well established art critic around that time. He really needs his own article! scope_creep (talk) 00:20, 07 Aug 2013 (UTC)

Comment Per several of the above comments and more extensive searching, I'm now more inclined to agree with the rationale for keeping. That said, the article will require major cleaning and the addition of cites, since most of what's there now appears to be original research. JNW (talk) 23:37, 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 speedy delete. since that spi will apparently keep going indefinitely as more socks are discovered, I'm deleting via obvious G5, and salting it and an earlier deleted similar title. DGG ( talk ) 07:08, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Olympus Worldwide Chauffeured Services (company)[edit]

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

I am unable to find any substantial neutral coverage in reliable sources sufficient to show the notability of this company. The included sources all appear to be either non-reliable sources, or very limited references in trade media, This was proposed for deletion, then deprodded with the stated rationale that the article meets WP:CORPDEPTH, but no additional sources were offered. Arxiloxos (talk) 16:06, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 16:38, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 16:38, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 16:38, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, preferably via CSD G5 as soon as the latest SPI in to morning277 is closed. (This article was created by a paid editor who is one of the prolific sockmasters in Wikipedia's history.) Kevin Gorman (talk) 18:52, 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. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:35, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Jigme Lodro Rinpoche[edit]

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

WP:N, WP:V Geoff Capp (talk) 04:16, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment from Nom: News search reveals only this article; 5 results in Books, three of which are wiki compilations and the other two catalogs of names. Article is barely more than a WP:COPYVIO of an uncited webpage, and has had Template:Primary sources since April 2009 with no secondaries available or forthcoming. Only 4 inbound wikilinks from Article space, two of which are dabs and the other two uncited. There are notable Lamas, and this isn't one of them. ETA: creator and all substantive editors of the article now have been notified of this AfD. —Geoff Capp (talk) 04:30, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:47, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:47, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Buddhism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:48, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:48, 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, Theopolisme (talk) 05:39, 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, —Tom Morris (talk) 16:05, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This Lama was in Switzerland and gave a initiation on Guhyagarbha Tantra November 8-10 2013 in Rigdzin Community, see http://www.namkha.org/.92.104.37.140 (talk) 20:10, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no evidence that this person is notable within Tibetan Buddism. Bearian (talk) 22:00, 12 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) 02:35, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Maum Meditation[edit]

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

A lot of original research and reads like a advert or promotional brochure most of the time. Gbawden (talk) 09:00, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:48, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:48, 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, Theopolisme (talk) 05:35, 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, —Tom Morris (talk) 16:03, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spirituality-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 17:39, 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. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:36, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Abdullah Bashir[edit]

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

Puff-piece promoting a male model. Article was in PROD and creator removed PROD tag adding some non-RS sources like Facebook and a "Vote for Model of the Week"poll in fan-sites like Vampirefreaks.com Alexf^(talk) 14:47, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:49, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:49, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:49, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete It is a puff-piece. Half the sources are dead links. Web lookup points to WP. Self referential puff piece by aspiring model. Fails WP:BIO scope_creep (talk) 23:49, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as nom. The only reason I did not speedy deleted on sight was because it had gone to PROD and had to be brought to AfD to follow due process. It is obviously a fan-joke if you see the removed text and the attempts from IPs to "fix" it. -- Alexf^(talk) 14:47, 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 Speedied as spam and salted. Peridon (talk) 17:56, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deep Dhudiya[edit]

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

Not notable. No reliable sources. No GHits/GNews/GBooks hits, other than social media. Promotional. CSD tags repeatedly removed by IP. GregJackP Boomer! 14:31, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - as per nom - This article has twice previously been deleted (and once for a version DeepDhudiya (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) without the space in the name), & was for a while protected against re-creation, but once that protection expired the same user came along & produced something obviously non-compliant with Wikipedia's requirements for an article. No justification has been given for the repeated removal of the speedy tags. - David Biddulph (talk) 14:41, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

To add insult to injury, one of the IPs (106.78.159.225) who had repeatedly removed the speedy deletion tags then decided to remove the AFD tag, despite the crystal clear instructions to prohbit such action. - David Biddulph (talk) 14:59, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The person is non-notable at this time. This is more like a LinkedIn profile than an encyclopedia article. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 15:38, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:47, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:48, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete Per nom. The Legend of Zorro 16:18, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and permanently salt both entries. There's no notability here and it seems to be fairly clear that the article is only being used to spam, and once any temporary salting is up, they'll try to re-add the article. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 16:51, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, it looks like this was meant to have been permanently salted, as the talk page for the article shows a permanent salting. Since this is so blatantly promotional, I'll tag it as a speedy promo. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 16:55, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I would also recommend blocking the original editor, as his only edits have been to add himself to various places, as can be seen with this edit. It's pretty obvious that he'll just keep trying to add himself, so I think he's beyond the point of good will. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 16:59, 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 Speedy deleted as attack page. Peridon (talk) 17:21, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Totoy Brown[edit]

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

Non-notable person and article does not contain any reliable resources.DaryllM (talk) 14:12, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:15, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:15, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:15, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This article has no citations, and appears to be only original research. Angel of Mischief (talk) 14:26, 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. No prejudice towards redirection Mark Arsten (talk) 02:42, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Time-challenged[edit]

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

Page does not meet notability standards. Only one source in the article refers to the actual term "time-challenged" and appears to be a dictionary definition. If important, topics in this article could be merged with articles on time, Stonehenge, or others. Article cites opinions on time management that appear books that seem to be advice-type things for general readers, which is not encyclopedic. Corvus coronoides _talk 12:10, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment as nominator: a search for sources on the terms yields many usages of the term in news articles, etc., but there is no coverage on what it means to be "time-challenged" beyond a dictionary definition. Corvus coronoides _talk 12:22, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

~~Strong Keep.~~ I found sources on usage of the word. Time-challenged has a particular spelling. It means having too little time. The article elaborates on that. Since it covers what it means to be time-challenged, without including my experience of it (it is not from Wasting time; it's a paranormal shortage of time), the article should be kept. although short. There might be books on the subject. Maybe somebody has time to find them. -Truexper (talk) 21:46, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You already voted below, so I struck the second. Ansh6 6 6 22:08, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – this may be a noteworthy topic, but as it stands it fails WP:OR enough to a point where I can't tell if it is salvageable or not. NW (Talk) 13:11, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:12, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:12, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The article has been recently reworked per this revision since the nomination. This incarnation feels like one part dictionary entry and several parts synthesized claims that are, perhaps, only loosely related to one another. Echoing NW above, the article feels like original research. The current sources discuss time/physics generally, but only a few seem to reference the topic specifically, and it's unclear whether these provide significant coverage of being time-challenged. I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 15:11, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's in Microsoft Word's dictionary. That is significant coverage. Also, the the basic concept of Wikipedia is for “editors” to work on articles for the articles to improve over time. So, get editing. There isn't any rush to perfect the article. Since Time-challenged is a word about time shortage and not about laziness, it should have it's own article. Truexper (talk) 11:44, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

FIrst, a dictionary (letalone MS Word's dictionary) is not significant coverage-- it is just the opposite, routine coverage. Second, Wikipedia is not a dictionary. The scope of this project is not to include article on every single word in the English language, particularly ones that are ill-defined. I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 20:30, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The article is unquestionably original research: proposing that relativistic time dilation, Stonehenge's potential role as an astronomical observatory, and workaday schedule management concerns share a common theme is the essence of novel synthesis. Current content aside, I see no evidence that this term represents a concrete concept with significant, reliable coverage. Even if that were not the case, the current content here cannot be salvaged. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 16:08, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Synthesis, original research, etc. I do like the gratuitous Stonehenge mention, however. Nwlaw63 (talk) 17:03, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think that was put in to justify the picture, which is nice but I don't think the builders of Stonehenge were time-challenged in any sense of the expression. Kitfoxxe (talk) 17:10, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I expected the article to be about people with a poor "sense of time." Rather it is about, well, anything anyone wants the expression to mean, including not having enough time in a day to fulfil one's responsibilities among other meanings. This belongs in dictionary with each meaning numbered, not here by WP:Not a dictionary. Kitfoxxe (talk) 17:10, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep You voted twice. The article is about short hours being real and not an illusion. On notability, time in physics is an especially hot topic. (Reference: Is Time an Illusion? by Craig Callender in Scientific American address: www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=is-time-an-illusion) On original research, it's a new article and Wikipedia was put on line to write articles collaboratively. If a lot of people are looking, better references could be found. That is why I added the stub template. --Truexper (talk) 17:48, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Kitfoxxe (talk · contribs) made a comment above and supported deletion in a separate comment. This isn't "voting twice." On your rationale to keep, I'll just comment that articles are not kept even if they are on subjectively "hot" topics nor are they kept because they might be viewed by a lot of people, though there isn't much evidence that either is true in this situation. I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 17:56, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: adjectives rarely make good encyclopedia topics, and this article is a collection of disconnected topics having a vague linkage of time measurement. Possibly useful to redirect to Time management as the primary topic of the phrase; some of the content might possibly go into Time perception. PamD 19:38, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A hodge podge of different uses of a word. Pure WP:OR/WP:SYNTH. IRWolfie- (talk) 23:45, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 02:11, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Time management - at current, this article is WP:OR-filled and so nonsensical I can't figure out what it's actually about; my preferred redirect target is what I'd think of. Other possible redirect and merge targets mentioned above. Ansh6 6 6 18:42, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's about short time. So many people experience it there's a word for it. There's nothing nonsensical about it. It's in Microsoft Word's dictionary. --Truexper (talk) 11:44, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe Time perception instead? NW (Talk) 00:00, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know...sure, whatever...I'm not going to waste time on this! Ansh6 6 6 00:18, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Time-challenged is a word. The meaning of the term is “having too little time” and therefore “too busy.” The words “too little time” are about time. Time management is just an opinion on the phenomenon. I’m always careful not to have synthesis or original thought in an article. I’m simply explaining the subject to the reader. Truexper (talk) 11:44, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A merger or redirect to time management seems reasonable and cheap. Bearian (talk) 22:02, 12 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) 02:33, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Vern Pierson[edit]

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

Article about a district attorney. Is this group of persons, in general, considered notable? WP:POLITICIAN says international, national or sub-national (statewide/provincewide). Sources are only from local news. A section named Scandals in the article could give the impression that someone is using Wikipedia for local politics. A CSD was declined. Ben Ben (talk) 10:56, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Ben Ben (talk) 10:58, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I declined the CSD for the reason that the claim of being a district attorney is a claim of being "important or significant" so makes it not CSD'able. My gut feeling is this guy is not notable and this will end up being deleted, however not got the time to do a full search before !voting at the moment. LGA _talk^edits 11:19, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:57, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:58, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The bulk of the article is copyvio from the About Vern Pierson page. The sources of the "Scandals" section appear to be blogs. A search for reliable sources gets passing mentions and local political squabbles. As a county official an an unelected candidate for higher office, the subject also fails WP:POLITICIAN. • Gene93k (talk) 14:08, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I did a check for reliable independent third party sources on this person and all I found were passing mentions in a few such sources— no direct coverage of him in any, and so fails to meet the notability guidelines. Aside from this, the huge bulk of the article appears to be a long résumé which doesn't cite any sources: if this section is removed, there isn't really an article left. KDS4444^Talk 14:33, 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. Per WP:SNOW. Suggestions for merging content have been made, and those proposals can happen at the appropriate venue. Remember that it is impossible to both delete and merge contents, as the source article's contribution history must be retained to provide attribution for the merged contents. (non-admin closure) Michaelzeng7 (talk) 17:48, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

March Against Monsanto[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Nearly every source in this article is from a small period of time, a 5 day period at the end of may, failing WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE. More importantly, the lack of adequate coverage and because it fails WP:INDEPTH it means that several editors are contending that the scientific consensus about GMOs can not be stated in this article without it being OR [12]. As such this article inherently fails WP:NPOV/WP:FRINGE. It can never be neutral, no matter how much editing we do. It will always contain fringe claims without contextualising them or stating the scientific mainstream. IRWolfie- (talk) 09:39, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and merge core content to Genetically modified food controversies. While the topic is notable enough for a section in a larger topic, the lack of multiple high-quality sourcing does not justify a standalone article, and in fact risks erecting a coatrack for pro- and contra- POVs ... which is what we have seen in the edit history here. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 09:45, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The core content is always covered there and in sufficient detail. IRWolfie- (talk) 09:51, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The event itself is obviously notable and its scope international. --Ubikwit^連絡_{見学/迷惑} 09:59, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep, do not merge any content, and allow for expansion. The last good version of this article was in the process of undergoing 2x expansion from 20,000 bytes to 40,000 bytes with the addition of about 20 new sources before being disrupted by POV pushers and edit warriors yet again. IRWolfie's deletion rationale is entirely false and based on an imaginative fantasy he invented that has no bearing on reality. The sources in this article range from before the protests on May 8, 15, 19, 21, and 24, to the day of the protests on May 25, to after the protests on May 26, 27, 28, 29, 31 through June 2, 3, 5, 6, 8, 19, and into July. It does not fail WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE at all nor does it fail WP:INDEPTH, as we have numerous in depth coverage about the worldwide protests and the reasons for the protests. Finally, there are no editors "contending" that the scientific consensus cannot be stated in this article without it being OR, that is another imaginative fantasy that IRWolfie made up. The fact of the matter is, the scientific consensus has been stated multiple times throughout the last good version of the article using sources about the subject of the protests, not off-topic sources about some other subject. That's how WP:NOR works. To prove this point, the last good version said, "Many scientists and U.S. government agencies maintain that GMOs are safe" (Associated Press), "people can be rest assured that GE foods are absolutely fine" (The Wellingtonian) and "Genetically modified crops are the most tested and regulated crops, and the scientific consensus about their safety is overwhelming." (The Maui News) So, that's three examples of reliable secondary sources in the last good version of the article illustrating the scientific consensus without original research. One must either assume that IRWolfie doesn't understand the English language or is deliberately making false statements in bad faith to get this article deleted. Viriditas (talk) 10:15, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE has "Events that are only covered in sources published during or immediately after an event, without further analysis or discussion, are likely not suitable for an encyclopedia article." We appear to have no high-quality sources offering such follow-up "analysis or discussion". Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 10:24, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's total and complete nonsense, as I just provided a dozen high-quality sources offering follow-up analysis and discussion. Plus, the news indexes have dozens more. Furthermore, your line of reasoning is specious. Many of the sources offering analysis and discussion were removed recently for no reason from the article, including Livingston's analysis, "Millions worldwide join March against Monsanto" in The Louisiana Weekly published on 3 June, and Bachman's "Monsanto Protests Not in the News", published in the Wisconsin Rapids Daily Tribune on 6 June. This is the second time you've attempted to make an argument after material has been removed from the article to support your argument. Sorry, but that's dishonest. Viriditas (talk) 10:35, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if you can overcome aside your civility bypass for a moment, please humour me: name a single high-quality source which provides "further analysis or discussion". I don't think an opinion piece from the Wisconsin Rapids Daily Tribune would count. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 11:59, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This event was discussed in a New York Times article just 10 days ago.[13] TimidGuy (talk) 10:58, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- A single mention in passing does not amount to "further analysis or discussion". Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 11:55, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge The "international scope" seems a teensy bit overstated per reliable sources, several of the sources include FaceBook, SPS sources, and deadlinks for an ABC News story for which a correction was issued. And the ever-delightful RT.com - which is "Novosti". Badly sourced, relying almost entirely on opinion articles and SPS sources = obvious merge candidate. The NYT mention is not about MAM which is mentioned en passant - it is about the general move to Save the Orange by Altering Its DNA as there is a disease which will likely destroy the entire world's orange crop if nothing is done. An emerging scientific consensus held that genetic engineering would be required to defeat citrus greening. “People are either going to drink transgenic orange juice or they’re going to drink apple juice,” one University of Florida scientist told Mr. Kress. is not about this "march". BTW, Florida ranges are all grafted onto sour orange rootstock, just like all the European grapes are on American rootstock. If one wishes "untampered with" fruits, they ae rather out of luck for over a century now. Collect (talk) 11:12, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. Clearly notable with continuing coverage. WP:FRINGE is being misapplied. GregJackP Boomer! 11:29, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This is something which has received significant attention and coverage, and easily satisfies Wikipedia's notability criteria. The arguments for deletion or merging do not stand up. "Lack of adequate coverage"? There is a substantial amount of coverage, from differing points of view. Collect's argument is largely based on his/her belief that people who are opposed to "genetic modification" are wrong, but we don't get rid of articles because we disagree with the people they refer to. Also, Collect's statement that the coverage relies "almost entirely on opinion articles" is irrelevant: on a controversial subject, of course much of the coverage will express opinions, and our job is to reflect all of the prominent opinions, not to refuse to report the subject. A much more serious problem is that the editing of the article has been plagued by edit warring, quarrels, accusations of bad faith, and so on, but that is a reason for working to try to achieve a version which all parties will, if not support, at least tolerate: it is not a reason to delete the article. (While finding myself on the same side in this discussion, I should like to distance myself from Viriditas's personal attacks, assumptions of bad faith, and ad hominem arguments.) JamesBWatson (talk) 11:44, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There's more than enough coverage to justify the article, regardless of the problems we've had with it. Thargor Orlando (talk) 12:01, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep' - I made the original nomination for deletion, when the article was terrible. This article isn't primarily about genetically modified food, but about a protest. The article needs improvement, and has had too much edit warring and too many allegations of paid editing and sock puppetry, but that is not an argument for deletion or merging of the article. (It may be an argument for deletion of some of the editors or their talk page posts.) Robert McClenon (talk) 12:03, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. - I am unsure is i have a voice in this discussion, because i have a conflict of interest (i am involved in the lawsuit against Monsanto and participated as an organizer of this event). i also created the initial entry on MAM. But if i do have a voice, it seems like this event is important for a number of reasons. One is the sheer number of places which did have demonstrations on March 25, 2013 - there are literally hundreds of MAM local FB sites which have reports of their actions. But a second important dimension is that this event was in some real sense a grass roots operation. While some larger environmental organizations and consumer safety groups supported the effort, they neither bankrolled it nor invested significant staff resources in making it spread. Thus this campaign is an important example of the use of social media to mobilize average citizens to political action which is not voting. [If someone wanted to advise me on conflict of interest in this case, i would be happy to understand wikipedia's internal policies. I have read the WP:COI section, and am both disclosing my conflict and asking others to help manage it, as this section suggests.] Paxus Calta (talk) 12:23, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep - Suggest a SNOW close based on the above. I have been working at calming both sides down, but a new ANI filing and the new Afd nom here aren't helping. This second nomination is patently absurd in my view, in view of the major consensus in the recent first Afd. It gives the appearance, rightly or wrongly, of an attempt to squelch an article on a significant, well-reported international event that made history, and this attempt further gives the appearance that it is all because it tarnishes the reputation of a controversial multinational corporation. The few opposers are unconvincing... with use of WP:FRINGE becoming tiresome to the point of a violation of WP:TEND. As noted, there is some arguable abuse of process going on here. Wikipedia must be better than this, so let's speedily reject calls to delete or merge (which I frankly suspect is the goal here so as to minimize the information) and move on. My ability to observe WP:AGF is being strained to the limit. And allow me to salute Robert McClenon, the first-time nominator, for his keep !vote here. Jus da fax
Snow Keep and trout the nominator. No reason to repeat arguments well expressed above. This AfD has no basis, and make me question about the competence/good faith of the nominator. Cavarrone 13:00, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:51, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:51, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:52, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:52, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Merge useful, sourced content into both the generic controversies article AND the article about the company itself. This article is simply a magnet for false science, non-NPOV, Fringe, etc, and really has no place as a separate article as effectively a WP:ONEVENT ES &L 14:32, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- The event is notable. Writing a neutral article that complies with the requirements of FRINGE to make the scientific consensus clear probably requires citing a few outside sources -- this is a special case of its limited coverage, and doesn't imply a lack of notability. a13ean (talk) 14:59, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This nomination is disruptive. IRWolfie has admitted[14] that he wants to add WP:OR to the article. Failing that, he wants to delete the article. — goethean 15:01, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. Strong feelings surround this article, but an impartial read of the text as it is shows it's notable, well written, and broadly balanced and accurate. As regards WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE specifically, a cursory search of the news coverage of this event actually reveals it has received considerably more coverage several months after the event in the MSM than it did at the time. I'm actually very disappointed to see a second AfD request here. It sure looks like a disruptive nomination to me. DanHobley (talk) 15:20, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Snow Keep and trout the nominator - per Cavarrone. petrarchan47 t c 15:45, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. A merge won't work to other articles. Some are two large already. This is what I was told so I created Taco Bell GMO recall after my addition to Genetically modified food controversies was reverted with the same material. There are so many that we may wish to spin a few more out of that article. I am still wondering if anyone is going to take the Monsanto-favouring COI edit claims to Arbcom. If anyone does then let me know.--Canoe1967 (talk) 16:25, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There is absolutely no valid argument whatsoever that the page fails WP:GNG. It passes it, and it doesn't conflict with WP:NOT. Period. Frankly, this AfD is the last thing we need, in the context of the ongoing conflicts over the page and the associated editor conduct. And I want to point out that I, and a number of other editors who have been accused of being somehow hostile to the page or to its subject, have come here to argue for keeping the page. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:54, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- This weak attempt at discrediting this notable topic after a clear keep at the prior AfD is a waste of everyone's time.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 17:00, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As for the WP:Fringe argument: The debate over use of GMO involves both science, politics and bioethics. Wikipedia shouldn't try to present it simply as a scientific question and make natural scientists the only legitimate or relevant voices in the debate. I also think the march has enough coverage to satisfy WP:GNG,, and as noted it was an international event with worldwide coverage, which is a special argument for inclusion. Regards, Iselilja (talk) 17:25, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - No valid policy-based reason for deletion. Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:37, 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 speedy delete. Uncontentious G7 Shirt58 (talk) 09:58, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sweden national under-20 football team[edit]

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

Redirect left over from pagemove, check the history. AshFR (talk) 08:59, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I withdraw this nomination and request speedy deletion per G7 "Author request deletion or author blanked". --AshFR (talk) 09:03, 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. --BDD (talk) 23:04, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Laura LaFrate[edit]

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

Losing finalist of a modeling contest has no notability and no lack of sources. ApprenticeFan ^work 08:41, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:45, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:45, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:46, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:46, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Article makes no assertion of notability, provides no sources (that's zero, as in not even an unreliable primary source with a conflict of interest). Individual also does not (yet) appear to meet the notability guidelines for biographies of living persons.
Delete per above reasons - I checked and also found nothing to demonstrate any notability for this - surprising, given she supposedly appeared on a show you'd expect to at least receive some trashy tabloid coverage, and given what the article says about her sexuality, I'm even more surprised at the seeming lack of trashy tabloid coverage... Mabalu (talk) 03:02, 13 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 withdrawn; this was a bad decision based on a misreading. I will go with an RFC instead.—Ryulong (琉竜) 13:50, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Neon Genesis Evangelion[edit]

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

Six years ago, the page located at this title was about the animated series currently located at Neon Genesis Evangelion (anime). At some point, there was a discussion (I've not seen proof) that resulted in the anime getting a disambiguated page title and Neon Genesis Evangelion becoming a "franchise" page to cover all media relating to the anime.

A few days ago I proposed on WT:ANIME that the project coordinates a massive restructuring of the pages such that the current "franchise page" is merged into Neon Genesis Evangelion (anime) and that article is made into the primary topic (as well as some work on Neon Genesis Evangelion (manga)) as seen here. While some of the editors of the WikiProject agreed and thought it would be a good idea, a group of editors (including one who personally does not see eye to eye with me over a similar dispute on another article) have vociferously opposed as they feel the page has its necessity as the anime apparently does not qualify as primary topic anymore. Page view data shows that over the last 90 days this article had 368697 hits compared to the 318727 the "(anime)" page received in the same time period, suggesting that so many people just type in "Neon Genesis Evangelion" and then hop on over to the anime page in the dab link.

In addition, none of the sources in the article reference that the franchise is something that even exists. Yes, there are multiple media adaptations, but they are all derivations of the original television series and should be discussed within the context of that rather than having everything discussed separately. Franchise pages have their place when there are so many different things to discuss. This is barely the case with Evangelion, where the anime spawned everything that came after and everything that has been released is a derivation of the original TV series with slight changes to character interpretation or some events (the manga which has been published on and off for the past 25 years and technically before the anime and the recent film quadrilogy examples of such).

As this is such a high profile topic, I must emphasize that I acknowledge that "Neon Genesis Evangelion" is notable. That is not the reason for this AFD. This has to do with properly restructuring several articles when a WikiProject described by those who have opposed as "moribund" and "stagnant and decaying" will apparently not be able to coordinate proper work, despite the fact that several other editors agree with my proposal. The insular nature of this group simply means that nothing will properly get done, so the wider audience of articles for deletion is needed to gauge what should be done.

To summarize, the franchise/top level/topic level/whatever format currently used at Neon Genesis Evangelion does not work. Neon Genesis Evangelion (anime) should be at this title instead, and a bulk of the current article should be incorporated into the "(anime)" page instead of having a glorified disambiguation page. —Ryulong (琉竜) 06:34, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No. It's "no" and not "keep" because it is about the whole reasoning above. While I understand Ryulong reasoning, the "glorified disambiguation page" is instead massively useful for readers, and diluting the information in the "(anime)" page would be detrimental both to the page (bloating it), and to the readers (who would have to go there to find all the spawned stuff). Also: that all of that spawned from the anime is not a reason to include it in the anime article, just like we don't put birds as a section of dinosaurs, even if we know well the birds are a spawn of dinosaurs. To sum up, this is a case where trying to tidy up actually becomes harmful to readers and articles. Not counting the fact that you're asking for cleanup, and not for the deletion of an article per se, therefore this is bordering on disruptive. The outcome should be: speedy keep+ discuss it elsewhere. -- cyclopia^speak! 12:41, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep - AFD is not the place to discuss such a restructuring. Do this at the WikiProject or an RFC or something, and then request the help of an Admin if deletion is necessary in the consensus that forms. Sergecross73 msg me 12:56, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep - The fact that multiple titles of completely different media use Neon Genesis Evangelion as their title is one thing, the fact that a manga, an anime, and some video games all use the title. Other NGE works include other video games which are related to their own canon, the Rebirth Death, Death2, End of Evangelion, the tetralogy Rebuild movies, the novel, the other mangas including a manga spin off from the video game. The completely unrelated pachi-type games (which are not casino games, but are on handhelds...). The numerous radio dramas, line of mecha and other toys... even the cultural impact based on this really convoluted set of materials. Let's not forget we are actually missing a lot of content and we cannot even fully grasp the books and movies released - many are not even related to the anime. The anime page should not be the main page because it is such a disservice to the readers and so confusing - and a small disamb will do nothing. Given Ryulong's previous action in this area, his inclusion relegates other media to single sentences. And remember, the anime wasn't even the first release. It was the manga which ran for 18 years. Current productions are the Rebuild series which reimagines the events of the anime. All arguments about "views" are strawman arguments because the anime gets more viewers in some days then the topic level page, but the Rebuild and other articles get tens of thousands of views as well, with 180,000+ views on are ailing Rebuild section alone. This deletion simply is destructive and limiting. Our readers and their comprehension of the subject is paramount to Wikipedia's success as a viable source of information - let's not purposely make the confusing topic even more confusing to them by throwing up barriers to accessing topic-level information about what Evangelion is, what it contains and why it is important as a whole. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 13:07, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:36, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:37, 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 withdrawn by nominator. StringTheory11 (t • c) 18:39, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

CPD -572874[edit]

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

Doesn't seem to meet WP:NASTRO. StringTheory11 (t • c) 03:45, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I found a few references, which I have added, and it was the first star of that class that particular features where observed in. I think there is enough there now to prove notability. Sarahj2107 (talk) 08:22, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per sources found by Sarahj2107.-- cyclopia^speak! 12:43, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:34, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:HEY (and WP:NASTRO #3). —David Eppstein (talk) 16:39, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Notability has now been shown. SL93 (talk) 18:38, 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 speedy deleted by User:Jimfbleak per CSD G11, "Unambiguous advertising or promotion." (Non-administrator discussion closure.) Northamerica1000^(talk) 12:40, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Bulb America[edit]

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

Bulb America fails WP:CORPDEPTH as far as I can tell (and appears to have been created by a morning277 sock, who also removed the prod tag.) Kevin Gorman (talk) 02:50, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:03, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:03, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Although I tend toward being a "deletionist" when it comes to dubious Wikipedia articles, especially ones about businesses (many of which are the result of contracts and do not warrant articles), Bulb America appears to be an exception. The first three references in the article do the article no good: they are citations to products the company sells, which is not how citations are intended to work. But the fourth citation is to an article written by an independent journalist at a web site with editorial oversight and has a section in it that is specifically about the subject of the Wikipedia article. I was rather surprised to find it, but there it was: legitimate coverage in an independent reliable third-party source. This citation should have been used FIRST in the article, not FOURTH! So whoever wrote the article should seriously consider a rewrite, and second, it appears that the article's subject is actually notable. As a side note, I have heard of this company before now and even purchased bulbs from them. This is not by itself any reason to warrant a Wikipedia article on them, I know! But it is telling. And the fourth citation cements it for me, unless it can be uncovered as somehow published under false pretenses (which I doubt, but I have been fooled before). So it is a badly written piece, perhaps, but need not be deleted (but keep the deletion nominations coming 'cuz there are lots more that do). KDS4444^Talk 04:32, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I rather have tended to be an inclusionist, but not with this sort of advertisement, with most of the references either not being about the company, like the first one from Technorati -- a real article from them actually about the subject would go a long way towards notability --, or just repeating its own PR . Ref 4 is not a RS about the company--the #1 Billion is the total projected LED market! The content in the article about the company is straight unabashed advertising--"The company operates on the philosophy of providing high quality products at competitive prices and excellent customer service. It also believes in providing its customers with honest and upfront service. It has absolute faith in the concept of customer satisfaction and works toward ensuring its customers are completely satisfied." Not just advertising but low quality unconvincing repetitive advertising. DGG ( talk ) 08:38, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

DGG, where are guys like you when I need you?! I am conceding that the article on Vatalyst does rather read like a press release or an advertisement. I checked out the Vatalyst web site to see what they are about, and the site basically says, "We write things about stuff", which isn't very helpful. I have sent them an email asking them to clarify how they select the topics of their articles, and will report back when I hear from them. My current suspicion is that their staff are paid by companies to write newsy articles about them, and if that is so, then the source won't hold for a claim of notability. I also did some checking about Vatalyst on the Internet generally-- other people have expressed concerns that Vatalyst is a format for paid advertising, which now heightens my suspicions. My vote to keep is looking shaky-- we shall see. KDS4444^Talk 04:51, 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 keep. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:30, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Kim Lukas[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Alright. I'm going for another deletion discussion here.

As I've said before, I knew about Kim Lukas because, after seeing the video for an Eiffel 65 song, I was seeing what other music videos Blisscomedia did. "All I Really Want" by Kim Lukas happened to be one of them. I was willing enough to expand this article with coverage from reliable sources, but when trying to look for real independent coverage, I came up empty, and felt doing a deletion discussion was necessary.

Now before you say "Keep per WP:MUSICBIO cause she's had two hits in Europe and Canada" or some other bullshit like that, I still stand by on what I said the last time I nominated this. Just because a musical artist had only one big hit (or any amount of hits, actually) does not really affect much of the notability of the subject for Wikipedia. I say this because all the Keep arguments on the last nomination basically said that it met WP:MUSICBIO, without making any mention about WP:GNG. Please note that an article on Wikipedia should not be on an artist whose songs have done well on charts (which we can verify from reliable sources), but we also need secondary sources that go in-depth about Kim Lukas to establish notability (also meeting ALL of the criteria for GNG), and surely the biography sources and interviews cited here, although still reliable, are certainly not secondary or independent.

So I hope you get what I just said. I'll be happy if you find any newspaper or magazine articles about this women, but as of now, GNG wins out. Editor Eat ma talk page up, scotty! 02:46, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:02, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:02, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:02, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Snow Keep, previous nomination closed as keep less than one month ago, no new arguments are being presented here to justify a new nomination by the same editor. SNGs including MUSICBIO are parts of WP:N not less than GNG, and they are intended to work together and not at odds. Apparently failing the GNG does not mean failing WP:N. Arguments of the previous discussion are not "bullshit" nor "GNG wins out", these words make me question about the good faith of the nominator. Sooooo.... replying the rationale of the previous discussion, I would surely had considered deletion for someone who fulfill the MUSICBIO criterium in a borderline way, but the case of an artist who had two singles which were international hits through several European and Canadian charts make me leaning towards a very sure keep. Cavarrone 05:24, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Snow keep per Cavarrone. In the absence of some compelling new basis for this second AfD, it is way too soon to revisit this. --Arxiloxos (talk) 05:35, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per previous AfD. Obviously of encyclopedic interest. --Michig (talk) 05:58, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:MAJORITY argument. No need for these type of arguments that are also, what I think, bullshit. Also, could you give some secondary or independent sources you happen to find on this women, making it why you think the article is "obviously of encyclopedia interest", cause saying that her songs have been all over on the charts making her meet WP:MUSICBIO won't. Editor Eat ma talk page up, scotty! 14:18, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Per previous "bullshit". SL93 (talk) 18:40, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:MAJORITY argument. No need for these type of arguments that are also, what I think, bullshit. EditorEat ma talk page up, scotty! 14:18, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - I could really care less about what you consider bullshit. Fine, since you are so annoyed over something so trivial - This should be kept per WP:MUSICBIO per the hits. Since we are discussing bullshit, I consider your nomination rationale to be bullshit, which is only fair. SL93 (talk) 14:22, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - That part of the essay (key word - essay) is nonsense anyway. It is contributing to the discussion, because the only other alternative is repeating the same reasoning. SL93 (talk) 14:25, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    - EditorE, with respect, "drop the stick and back slowly away from the horse carcass". Don't be surprised if people vote "per previous discussion" as you nominated an article just 3 weeks after the previous discussion ended, and without offering any new argument for deletion. You cannot nominate an article continuously until you reach the desired outcome, and on the sole basis of your personal bias against a specific guideline which has a general consensus among wikipedians (if not, it would be just an essay). Side note, excluding the current discussion (that is snowing to keep) and a few others still opened, your AfD stats as nominator are quite discouraging, in a short time 32 articles nominated for deletion, just 7 deleted (and among these 7, 3 were redirect). I suggest you a short wiki-break from nominations for deletion, just the time to familiarize with them and to understand how consensus works in such discussions. My best, Cavarrone 15:02, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      - Note from nominator (WARNING! INCOMING RANT). Okay. First of all, how the freakin' heck was saying it didn't meet GNG, even though I didn't mention about it in when I first nominated this, was not new? Second, the reason why some of the articles i nominated were kept was because no independent sources of those topics were found until one editor cam in the discussion and showed the sources, so I wouldn't say the stats are so much "discouraging" because of it. How about you just not be involved in any deletion discussion I start to see if any editor comes up with such type of a Keep argument like yours, which just to be nice I won't call it "bullshit". Thank you for reading this comment. My best of the best, Editor Eat ma talk page up, scotty! 21:52, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        Just not explicitly mentioning the word "GNG" in the previous nom, in which the rationale was a complaint about the lack of independent sources regarding the artist, does not really make the two rationales different. Second, I don't care too much about stats, I care more about your frustation, as the frequency you are using the word "bullshit" referring to other opinions is just becoming annoying and reveal your lack of comprehension about notability guidelines. Yes, we don't keep articles just when they meet GNG. Yes, we have other notability guidelines other than GNG. No, keeping an article basing on a notability guideline which still has a large community consensus is not bullshit. You can disagree, but this is not the proper place to discuss guidelines, go to WP:PEOPLE and suggest to use GNG as the only notability guideline for biographies if this is your point. Cavarrone 05:04, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        Alright, you know what, fuck it. I'll just withdraw this nomination if WP:MUSICBIO is enough to keep this article. However, the notability tag I put on the article should still be kept, as the notability of this singer is still questionable either way. I like her stuff, but I just don't feel an article about a singer who's only popular with eurodance sites and blogs is necessary. Also, just to point this out, charting is the least reliable method of gauging notability, and all the keep arguments on this deletion discussion clearly shows that. Editor Eat ma talk page up, scotty! 14:03, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        Sorry, this deletion discussion refers to the WP:NSONG guideline, this one to WP:MUSICBIO: when you give an example, you should care to compare two situations which are comparable, as a minimum. The "notability tag" you put in the article is just pointy and retiliatory. Template:Notability says: "Add this template to the top of any page whose article subject is, in your judgment, reasonably likely to be non-notable (not the sort of subject that Wikipedia ought to have an article about). When an article is certainly, hopelessly non-notable, then you should nominate it for proposed deletion or take it to Articles for deletion instead." Withdrawing an AFD nom just one day before its regular close as keep does not change the fact that the community was already called to judge her notability in two different deletion discussions and largerly expressed an assertion of notability for this artist. Cavarrone 17:27, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        Well, using charts to get the subject notable is still a problem with music bios, so screw your crap saying "when you give an example, you should care to compare two situations which are comparable, as a minimum." I'm sure you already know that, I'm assuming. Just please stop making you comments here. I am WITHDRAWING THIS DISCUSSION if the notability tag is disruptive or not. Case closed, Jury dismissed! Editor Eat ma talk page up, scotty! 17:51, 12 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) 02:29, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hub Mall Shooting[edit]

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

WP:NOTNEWS. No evidence of long-standing coverage. Beerest355 Talk 02:16, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:55, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:56, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, not news. 117Avenue (talk) 05:38, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This event doesn't seem to be notable. Crimes like this happen very often, sadly, and not all of them are notable enough for their own articles. T C N7JM 09:43, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 02:16, 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 Nomination withdrawn. LibStar (talk) 00:21, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Bhutan–Pakistan relations[edit]

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

fails WP:GNG. this article uses WP:SYNTH like "are relatively co-operative and friendly, although Bhutan shares exceptionally close ties with the Republic of India, with whom Pakistan has historically had difficult relations" and somehow is a trilateral relations article by mentioning "all three nations". level of trade is very low at 0.5USD million and there is no evidence of regular contact between the countries as claimed in the article. LibStar (talk) 01:35, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:53, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:54, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I've added quite a few sources, including a few detailed ones. One of the detailed ones is actually about India's reaction to Bhutan-Pakistan relations. I've also cleaned up the SYNTH in the lead. --99of9 (talk) 07:01, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Bhutan has formal diplomatic relations with a limited number of countries because of its special relationship with India. But Pakistan is one of those exceptional countries. Warden (talk) 09:53, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Whimsical deletion rationale, where the nom for example puts an arbitrary threshold for the level of trade and arbitrarily declares it "very low". Apart from that, the topic clearly meets WP:GNG as can be seen from the number of sources documenting Pakistan-Bhutan relationships in the article. Style/synth concerns can be addressed by editing. -- cyclopia^speak! 13:00, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Notable. Also, this book has many pages about the topic. SL93 (talk) 18:43, 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. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:29, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

List of places in Shenyang[edit]

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

This would seem to be an impossible-to-complete list; all places in Shenyang? While I appreciate that the original author has only included prominent locations, the current scope of the article fails WP:INDISCRIMINATE Ironholds (talk) 00:20, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: No well-defined article such as List of administrative divisions of Shenyang yet. GotR ^Talk 02:58, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:51, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:51, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The article title is fundamentally flawed. Maybe the author meant tourist attractions? It doesn't matter, the article can't overcome WP:INDISCRIMINATE. OSborn ^arf_contribs. 03:29, 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. Re-closing as Keep as there was a clear consensus, and the previous closure did not put the oldafdfull tag on the talk page. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:15, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was closed. It is clear the article will not be deleted. Beerest355 Talk 16:23, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Columbine High School massacre in modern culture[edit]

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

Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Unsourced trivia like this is inappropriate. Beerest355 Talk 00:16, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Beerest355 Talk 00:18, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. Beerest355 Talk 00:18, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Beerest355 Talk 00:18, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Even if this winds up being kept, the title should be changed -- it should probably say "popular culture" instead of "modern culture". --Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:15, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I don't like it, but "in popular culture" articles are a fixture on WP. Of course secondary sources are needed to show that the reference was intended. (This could be an interview with the artist.) In some cases there does not seem to be a direct connection. Kitfoxxe (talk) 04:54, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It's inspired so many works that are well-known, award-winning, critically acclaimed, or from notable artists/writers/filmmakers, that it can justifiably be said to be one of the most important events to affect pop culture: from Bowling for Columbine to We Need To Talk About Kevin, Elephant (2003 film) to Vernon God Little, works have set the cultural agenda and scooped big prizes; plus the endless media debates about the role metal music and video games played which were in turn addressed in various media. It would be better to have more narrative/analysis, but clearly deleting isn't the answer. --Colapeninsula (talk) 11:56, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I think the main massacre article should have a section that details the most relevant cultural references. Having an article that is comprised of mostly fleeting mentions is probably a violation of the indiscriminate information policy. Beerest355 Talk 19:26, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The topic is clearly notable. The editor previously nominated Duck! The Carbine High Massacre for deletion and even refused to withdraw the nomination when notability was shown, as well as when it was nominated for DYK. SL93 (talk) 18:47, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Uh, I don't see why you are bringing up a previous AfD that I didn't withdraw. Why does that have any relevance here? Your argument consists of "it's notable" and then something which I guess is there to try and prove the fact that I can't see notability. Beerest355 Talk 19:11, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The previous AfD is related to this topic so yes, I am showing that I think you can't see notability. SL93 (talk) 19:14, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure why a film relates to a list. Instead of proclaiming "ooh its notable alright" you could instead show how you think it is notable, like the other commenters, instead of bringing up a previous AfD which is unrelated to this article. It may share a similar subject, but that's no reason to try and slag this nomination as bad faith. Beerest355 Talk 19:22, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The film is the massacre in popular culture. I felt no need to expand on what others have already said. So, I will give a short reason without typing an essay, WP:N. SL93 (talk) 19:43, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Just because you disagree with me not withdrawing a previous AfD doesn't mean you should automatically dismiss this AfD too. I also think that it would've been better if you would've at least gave a short reason. Even "per the other arguments" would've been better. But I'm dropping the stick. Beerest355 Talk 20:12, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Like User:Kitfoxxe I don't "in popular culture" articles, especially those filled with passing references, but I believe the massacre affected the psyche of America so much that this one should stay. When you have films and tv episodes based upon this event, books written about it, or withdrawn from sale because of it, then this "in popular culture" article becomes notable.Martin451 (talk) 19:19, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Handwaving WP:INDISCRIMINATE is a not-so-clever trick for WP:IDONTLIKEIT. The nomination does not list a single policy based rationale for deleting it. That said, this article is a very discriminate and clear-cut collection of popular culture mentions of a massively notable event, and as such it is an appropriate content fork. -- cyclopia^speak! 15:49, 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) 02:20, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WFSLeague[edit]

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

Freestyle football is not a official sport. WFSLeague is a non-notable tournament. It's a movement tournament only. This article is VERY unnecessary. Banhtrung1 (talk) 01:10, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:46, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:46, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - non-notable tournament, fails WP:GNG. Giant Snowman 08:34, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I cannot find any deletion rationale. It would be helpful if the nominator explained why he thinks the tournament is non-notable (instead of just not notable), or why he thinks the article is "very unneccessary". It should also be noted that the nominator failed to inform the creator of this page about this discussion, and that he didn't provide an edit-summary which shows that the article is up for deletion. Mentoz86 (talk) 10:07, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"WFSLeague is a non-notable tournament" is a deletion rationale, is it not? But I agree with the rest, Banhtrung1 please follow WP:AFDHOWTO in future. Giant Snowman 15:06, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I stand with the Big Man of Snow: a search for reliable third party sources turns up nothing but a single youtube video, and so the subject fails to meet the notability guidelines for a sport. But the nominator did do a clumsy job of nominating it for deletion. KDS4444^Talk 15:03, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 02:18, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No indication at all within the article as to why the subject is notable. Fenix down (talk) 11:56, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG. It's a small branch of football. Searching for WFS League on Google gave me YouTube videos. --MicroX (talk) 07:15, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The only reason to delete this is because it failed WP:GNG. Other than that there is no other reasons. I would not mind this page being created again in the future, its a starter league and it could get popular (like the Homeless World Cup) but it needs to pass GNG and I can't help there at this moment. --ArsenalFan700 (talk) 21:36, 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.