The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 deletion (A7). (Non-admin closure) AllyD (talk) 09:00, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Olly Cunningham[edit]

Olly Cunningham (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

I can't decide if this is a hoax or simply very hard to verify.

If the character did exist, it doesn't seem to be notable on its own as I can find no information about the character. If it's fake, the article should obviously be deleted.

The Hollyoaks show has the largest list of characters I've ever seen for a show and they're well documented on Wikipedia. See Template:Hollyoaks characters for the numerous character articles. None of them mention anything about an Olly Cunningham. They do mention a Holly Cunningham but that's a female character that obviously doesn't fit the description given in this article.

A [Google search] for "Olly Cunningham Hollyoaks" produces no results outside of this article.

A Google search for "Phil Johnston Olly Cunningham" produces no results (the real name of the actor whom allegedly played Olly Cunningham).

I've never heard of the show before today I didn't go through every plot summary out there but I couldn't find anything about this character showing up on the show. He also doesn't appear in the article about his "long lost brother", Tom Cunningham. Using the term "long lost brother" for a 14 year old child doesn't make much sense to me either.

Lastly, IMDB has no page for Phil Johnston. There are two Phil Johnston actors listed and neither would be the right age to have played this character.

If the character is real, this article should be redirected to either to another related topic. If no one else can find information about the character, the article should be deleted. OlYeller21^Talktome 00:00, 30 December 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. Metropolitan90 (talk) 01:50, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

EMarketer[edit]

EMarketer (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Non notable market research firm. Every reference is either self-published or a routine notice based on press releases,. DGG ( talk ) 21:57, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:17, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:17, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:17, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Well, there are quite a few citations of their various market studies in Google Books and Google Scholar, so I'm inclined to think they might be notable. We should probably treat them as a we do press agencies (or academics) in this respect, i.e. if they are cited enough they are notable. How much is enough though? They seem to have thousands of citations, so I would say it's a keep. (Look for example how many times they've been cited in WSJ just in the last month [1]. In total, there are something like 55 pages (1000+ results) of ghits for eMarketer on WSJ's site alone.) Sure it would be nice to dig some WP:GNG coverage about the company itself, but going through thousands of pages is a lot of work... We might as well delete Forrester Research for it has a comparable number of hits in WSJ last month [2]. (Gartner has two or three times that number). And there are some web pages out there comparing eMarketer to Forrester [3][4] and some books do that as well [5] [6], so this isn't outlandish... This [7] for example works towards satisfying GNG. Someone not using his real name (talk) 07:02, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep. Easy keep. Agree with the above. Plenty of citations from reputable sources. They are clearly notable by how much their content is cited in other publications. E.g. [8]. However, some references should clearly not be there - Yahoo listing and Linkedin profile! Some are clearly also based on press or have a large spin from the company or owners. However, for a media-savy company perhaps that should be expected to some degree. But easy keep. GoldenClockCar (talk) 12:57, 28 December 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, Daniel (talk) 23:45, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per above. DavidLeighEllis (talk) 00:12, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Nike, Inc.. Courcelles 08:20, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nike Total 90 Tracer[edit]

Nike Total 90 Tracer (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

An stub article about a soccer ball (!?) made by Nike, used as the official ball in various leagues in 2010-2011, with no sources other than a link to Nike themselves. Should IMHO be deleted as pure (outdated) promo. Thomas.W ^{talk to me} 22:16, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• comment It would be the reaction of most people, I would imagine, that articles on soccer ball brands would be outside the the scope of a real general interest encyclopedia, but we appear to have many of them. I cannot see any rational basis on which to distinguish this one from others, so unless we are going to step up to deleting the lot, it's hard for me to say why this one should be deleted. Mangoe (talk) 23:16, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: It's not an article about a soccer ball brand, it's an article about a specific model of soccer ball. The brand article is Nike, Inc.. Thomas.W ^{talk to me} 07:53, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:25, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:25, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:25, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Nike, Inc. as not independently notable. GiantSnowman 11:19, 24 December 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, Daniel (talk) 23:45, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Nike, Inc. Does not merit its own article. JMHamo (talk) 14:01, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. KTC (talk) 00:55, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sam.c.s[edit]

Sam.c.s (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

A search for independent reliable sources indicates failure to meet WP:GNG. Flat Out let's discuss it 23:32, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete (possibly CSD A7). Effectively a WP:SPA CV for a software engineer who has been involved in some movie music. No evidence of attained notability. AllyD (talk) 09:08, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:29, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:29, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. I cannot find any evidence that he meets the guidelines for inclusion at WP:MUSICBIO or WP:GNG. — sparklism ^hey! 07:58, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - could not find any coverage whatsoever. --quantumobserver ^position momentum _{entanglements} 02:27, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Unreferenced BLP and failure to establish notability. Raykyogrou0 (Talk) 15:02, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 00:11, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

María Soledad Ortega de Argüello[edit]

María Soledad Ortega de Argüello (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

The article indicated that her only claim to fame is as an heiress. It is true that she inherited a huge piece of property. But is this sufficiently notable for encyclopedic purposes? I am not so sure and so would like a discussion. Weak delete. --Nlu (talk) 23:16, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Many articles and books about the early history of California talk about her. She is not known for her deeds but for her land. The US Supreme Court case Arguello vs United States (1855) was prominent, the one which decided her land; it set a precedent. See list of sources below. Binksternet (talk) 17:18, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• "The Arguellos and Rancho de las Pulgas", The Daily Journal, August 4, 2008.
• San Carlos, by Nicholas A. Veronico and Betty S. Veronico. Arcadia Publishing, 2007.
• Redwood City, by Nicholas A. Veronico, Betty S. Veronico, Reg McGovern and Janet McGovern. Arcadia Publishing, 2010.
• Cemeteries of Santa Clara, by Bea Lichtenstein. Arcadia Publishing, 2005.
• Brief History of the Pulgas Case and Decisions Bearing on it, by James William Denver and Maria de la Soledad Ortega de Arguello. 1878.
• Historic Spots in California, edited by Mildred Brooke Hoover and Douglas E. Kyle. Stanford University Press, 2002.
• Reports of Cases Determined in the Supreme Court of the State of California, Volume 21, by the California. Supreme Court. 1906.
• Annual Report of the Secretary of the Interior on the Operations of the Department, Volume 2, U.S. Government Printing Office, 1886.
• The Federal Cases: Comprising Cases Argued and Determined in the Circuit and District Courts of the United States from the Earliest Times to the Beginning of the Federal Reporter, Arranged Alphabetically by the Titles of the Cases, and Numbered Consecutively, Book 17, West Publishing Company, 1895.
• History of California: 1801-1824, by Hubert Howe Bancroft, Henry Lebbeus Oak, William Nemos and Mrs. Frances Fuller Victor. History Company, 1885.

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:20, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:20, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per substantial coverage in reliable independent sources. Candleabracadabra (talk) 01:23, 31 December 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. KTC (talk) 00:56, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Waterfuse[edit]

Waterfuse (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Procedural nomination on behalf of new user Wordy24, who placed an AfD template on this article but couldn't complete the procedure. I can certainly see why he wanted to nominate this as its notability seems quite iffy. Prodded in 2012 with the following rationales:

The term "waterfuse" apparently refers only to a single manufacturer's product, not to a generic device name. As such, this article falls more into the category of advertising. Although this device seems enormously useful, it does not appear to be very notable.

It is a trademarked name for another product and hasn't demonstrated independent notability

(Curiously, the article actually became more SPAMmy on deprodding.) Sideways713 (talk) 22:33, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as promotion of a non-notable product. I ran a search on all the academic databases to which I have access and found no evidence that this is anything other than a product. Moreover, a "water fuse" may refer to something else entirely (see US Patent application 20,120,186,328). There's also some beauty product going by this name. Google testing for waterfuse (without quotes) only reveals 323 hits. Anyhow, there's no indication of notability here. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 23:07, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Mendaliv. Products can be notable, but there is no evidence that this one is. SpinningSpark 23:44, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Notability has not been established.LM2000 (talk) 02:39, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:20, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:20, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:20, 30 December 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. KTC (talk) 00:56, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Branderpreneurship[edit]

Branderpreneurship (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

I tagget this for proposed deletion, but the prod tag was immediately removed, so I will take it to AfD, and repeat my prod reasoning: Neologism without indication of notability. The term is proposed by one person and the references that discuss branderpreneurship are that person's publications; all the other references discuss other concepts such as entrepreneurship and brand development. bonadea contributions talk 21:18, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment The article about the person who proposed the concept is also in AfD: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bambang Sukma Wijaya. (That AfD is almost due to close, which is the reason why I didn't simply include this article in that discussion.) --bonadea contributions talk 21:19, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as pure promotion. Thomas.W ^{talk to me} 21:22, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Per WP:NEO and WP:SOAP. —    Bill W.    (Talk)  (Contrib)  — 22:14, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:NEO and WP:NOTPROMOTION; no sources for neologism except its creator. Miniapolis 02:22, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. GregJackP Boomer! 03:58, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. -- Alexf^(talk) 13:33, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:13, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:13, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Per all above JayJay^{What did I do?} 15:27, 30 December 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. Our policies on splitting articles are very clear: independent notability must be established through reliable sources. This requirement is not waiverable, and as such those arguing for the preservation of this article would have to present how this requirement has been met. That has not happened here. Therefore, the only possible policy-backed course of action (based on the strong arguments presented in this discussion) is to delete these articles. For those who believe this should have been closed as no-consensus, I suggest you read our policy on notability and remember that these discussions are not votes. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 16:34, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Natalie Cook (Charlie's Angels)[edit]

Natalie Cook (Charlie's Angels) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Dylan Sanders (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Alex Munday (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

No reliable sources indicate that these characters have achieved notability independent of the two films in which they appear. When they are mentioned at all it is only within the context of the films and consists entirely of rehashes of plot details. Based on the style I would almost be willing to bet that they are copyvio reposts of promotional material from the film but I can't independently verify that. Regardless, their lack of notability means they need to be deleted. Jerry Pepsi (talk) 20:10, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment – looks like a copy vio eg from here, dated '7 years ago'. (Most of the material was added in the first edit in July 2007, 6 years ago.) Oculi (talk) 21:29, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • All three pages submitted by User:TMC1982 in July 2007 (Natalie Cook, Dylan Sanders, Alex Munday) match that Yahoo! Answers page, with added introductory sentences, ((DEFAULTSORT)), categories, and two sentences about Sanders's Helen Zaas backstory. The relative timing isn't so clear: assuming that the question ID is a timestamp, the question was submitted in late April 2007 and the answer some time later, but probably by late June (6.5 years before Oculi's check and comment). My guess is that they have official promo material as their common root source. Flatscan (talk) 05:55, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • The Background sections are close to the starting text, and Fashion and Covers and techniques were added in single edits by 125.160.120.56 in March 2008 (Natalie Cook, Dylan Sanders, Alex Munday). Flatscan (talk) 05:54, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's not clear from TMC1982's contributions alone (no removal edit), but the individual articles were copied from the During movies section of Charlie's Angels. The Yahoo! Answers answer was copied from Charlie's Angels sometime between late March (1, 2) and early July. User:Khaosjr inserted the three bios as one edit in September 2006. Khaosjr has two warnings for copyvio from May 2008 and June 2010. Flatscan (talk) 05:54, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • Khaosjr expanded several character lists in September 2006. The writing style is consistent, and the films and TV show are diverse. The curly quotes and special character ellipses are characteristic of copy/pasting from online or from original composition in a word processor. The May 2008 synopses were labeled as Danny Peary's work in their section headings, and they were removed immediately after the warning. Flatscan (talk) 06:14, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:40, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:40, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep or merge: This could be true of hundreds of other WP articles about movie characters. Copyvio material can be rewritten, removed or fixed; that is not a reason for deletion. Note that Sabrina Duncan, Kelly Garrett, Tiffany Welles, Jill Munroe, Kris Munroe and all the other "Angels" characters also have articles. This is not a reason for deletion, shall we next go on to hunt down all TV characters from Benjamin Sisko to Mister Ed? Montanabw^(talk) 04:52, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Why yes, what an excellent suggestion, let us delete all articles for all fictional characters that do not have independent reliable sources that establish that they are independently notable separately from the fiction in which they exist. I agree whole-heartedly. Please, give us the independent reliable sources that establish that these characters are notable beyond the fiction in which they exist. Jerry Pepsi (talk) 06:24, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

• Keep or Merge - Deletion is not a good course of action for an article of this type. Deletion should only come after it is shown to be unfixable and/or unmergable. VMS Mosaic (talk) 03:16, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete or redirect to Charlie's Angels (film) or an all-encompassing franchise character list should one be created. There is nothing asserting notability currently. Simply asserting that there must be applicable sources from a Google search isn't helpful to anything, and it is quite likely that anything that mentions the characters would fit within the film articles without issue. TTN (talk) 16:51, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment WP:MUSTBESOURCES and WP:GOOGLEHITS are not convincing arguments to keep this article. Neither is making personal attacks on the nominator. Instead, I suggest checking Google Books, which seems to give a few relevant hits. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 17:38, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect. There's no encyclopaedic content worth merging, just some unreferenced juvenile fansite twaddle (and, yes, probably copied from somewhere too). Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 18:11, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: I don't think a list article has been created, but probably should be. It might all be fansite twaddle, but so is List of Pokemon characters and we all know that's the very most important thing on Wikipedia. Montanabw^(talk) 22:28, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Rather than a list, the article for each version should handle them separately. The majority of the information is unnecessary plot information, and they have nothing relevant that makes it worth retaining any of the info. For these, the plot summaries from the two films are enough to get the gist of the characters, so there is no need for any more than that. TTN (talk) 22:42, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. These articles are largely plagiarized from their respective external links, [9], [10], and [11]. (The underlying site http://www.charliesangels.gr appears to have closed, but it was a fansite which itself cited no sources for its claims.) After deletion, the pages can be redirected to Charlie's Angels (film). --Metropolitan90 (talk) 02:06, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, likely WP:Copyright violations (promotional style, placed as large single edits) inserted at or near creation and persisting through present. The pages would qualify for WP:Criteria for speedy deletion#G12 if source URLs were known. I think that the recommendations to merge suspected copyvio are irresponsible. Flatscan (talk) 05:55, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  A merge does not inherently mean you blindly copy over everything, so please do not use non-AGF labels like "irresponsible." Obviously, copyvio material should go. But here's the point: Doesn't deletion leave no redirect at all? Deletion can just wind up having the same article recreated later. (I ran into this problem at a different wikiproject) Better to just put the relevant matrial into the merged article and if a revdel is needed on a copyvio, request that. Far less waste of bandwidth. Montanabw^(talk) 06:17, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Neither you nor VMS Mosaic specified what content to merge (WP:Merge what? essay). The Background sections originate from the starting text, and the insertions of Fashion and Covers and techniques are also suspicious. Assuming that all the large additions were/are copyvio, the prose of all three articles is almost entirely and irreparably tainted (WP:Text Copyright Violations 101#Sample scenarios), and – even if some were copyvio, some not – extricating any clean content beyond the infoboxes would be very difficult. Page protection is the proper tool to prevent recreation. An IP editor can revert a redirect, and the article text can be found elsewhere on the web if deleted. Flatscan (talk) 05:54, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, merge the three character articles into a "List of" article (I strongly suspect there are far more than enough RS refs discussing them as a group) keeping any non copyvio (even if that is only a summary sentence or two) and the infoboxes. At that point a redirect for each character to the list should be kept per WP:Merge#Reasons for merger. VMS Mosaic (talk) 07:09, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Like Montanabw^(talk) 08:13, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Using WP:Revision deletion on the entire history of the pages is an excessive amount of work for a few sentences and infoboxes that can be easily rewritten from scratch. Flatscan (talk) 05:54, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"From scratch" is not that "easily" done; it's easier to work with something that has been created. Right now, I've got a re-creation of something that was deleted as non-notable in the hopper (not an imaginary character, though) and it is immensely helpful to have the old stuff userfied first. Montanabw^(talk) 08:13, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Working from the old articles risks creating an unauthorized derivative work. Recreating the articles' unencyclopedic, WP:INUNIVERSE tone and zero reliable sources isn't a good thing. Flatscan (talk) 06:14, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I thought WP:Revision deletion was only used in special cases such as "the copyright holder asks the Wikimedia Foundation to remove it". After reviewing the guidelines, I see no reason for Revision deletion. In other words, please don't create a problem where none exists. VMS Mosaic (talk) 11:20, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

RD1 defers to WP:Copyright problems, and WP:Copyright problems/Advice for admins#Handling copyright violations recommends considering revision deletion "to help avoid inadvertent restoration in the future if the copyrighted content is extensive." If there is copyvio, most of each revision of the entire histories is tainted, and participants here have expressed interest in reusing the content by merging. Flatscan (talk) 06:14, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Prominent characters in major shows are appropriatesubjects for articles. Thi sshould be regarded as a split, and is better than a merge because it is more likely to actually manage to retain some content. Verifiability is met, and how we divide subjects up into articles is a matter of convenience. We make our own rules. In any case, merge not deletion is appropriate. If we simply accepted these kind of articles instead of arguing each one of them, we'd have more time to write. 'DGG (at NYPL)' (talk) 17:23, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• And the reliable sources that support these articles are...? There are none? Oh. Jerry Pepsi (talk) 04:45, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - With all the bickering and snarking, it may just be better to close it now as no consensus before people get blocked (again). The article does need a major rewrite or merged into a list, but I don't see how we get there with this AfD. VMS Mosaic (talk) 11:29, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Or in the alternative the closing admin could recognize that there are zero independent reliable sources that offer significant coverage of these characters and apply the relevant guidelines and delete them. No sources = no article, or at least it should. Jerry Pepsi (talk) 12:40, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Jerry, it is up to the closing admin to make a decision based on the arguments given here (i.e., he is not supposed to go off and make a decision based on his own view point). My point is that this entire discussion has gone beyond what a closing admin should be expected to deal with. Simply stating the same thing over and over and over and over .., again provides nothing helpful to the closing admin. At the risk of being unWP:CIVIL, that's all I'm going to say. There is nothing wrong with going to the mat in these discussions, but the arguments need to be more than "I say so" repeated over and over again. VMS Mosaic (talk) 13:09, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge and Redirect to main article. As explained, they have no independent notability. --Slashme (talk) 12:44, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

We all know whats gonna happen the inclusionist will keep these pathetic articles make no effort to find sources or make a place to merge this fancruft and deletionists will make a deletion attempt in the future and nothing changes. Mediocrity wins again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dwanyewest (talk • contribs) 21:52, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think WP:BRI is in place for both Jerry Pepsi and Dwanyewest here. This is the most tedious waste of time I've seen in a while. Chunk5Darth (talk) 14:16, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. I think it's best to delete these pages and start over again, perhaps with a List of Charlie's Angels characters. The copyright violation concerns mean that the articles would have to be stubbed anyway. The characters have not been demonstrated to have any notability, and they are probably best off described in such a list. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 15:14, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:34, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

STANAG 4222[edit]

STANAG 4222 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

I haven't found many sources talking about this, probably because it is so specialized. This is essentially a very technical standards for a very narrow field. Ego White Tray (talk) 19:44, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment STANAG 1236 and STANAG 1472 seems similar articles. Perhaps there is a list of STANAG standards to move these all into? Ego White Tray (talk) 20:59, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:11, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:11, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Dictionary definition. Article without content. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:27, 30 December 2013 (UTC).[reply]
• Delete or redirect to Standardization Agreement. I was unable to find multiple in depth sources describing or commenting upon this standard, it seems to fail WP:GNG notability thresholds. This standard, along with all the other STANAG standards, is listed at Standardization Agreement. A redirect would be OK, too, if others want it, but I think the STANAG redirect is probably good enough for searching purposes. --Mark viking (talk) 21:47, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per nom. -- P 1 9 9  ✉ 21:18, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 policy-backed arguments for the inclusion of this article have been made. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 16:42, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dysphexia[edit]

Dysphexia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Someone thought it would be a good idea to create an article about a non-existent disorder, apparently because it appears on a couple of government forms. Having a page for every goof and misspelling is a terrible idea for so many reasons. Ego White Tray (talk) 19:27, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep How else can people find out about this mythical condition? Of course the sole thing we have to cite is a primary source, but this is one of those articles where that inevitability is, of itself, encyclopaedic. This is a significant goof/typo/blunder, not just a run of the mill typing error. Fiddle Faddle 19:35, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Has anyone written an article about this error on these forms? Has this error had any influence in society or medicine? Have doctors reported that their patients are complaining about having this disorder? Are we obligated to change the redirect Saxomophone into an article because of a goof by Homer in The Simpsons? This is what notability is about, that someone actually cares about it, not merely that it exists. Ego White Tray (talk) 19:52, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• delete It's not up to use to do the research to show that the one reference to this in the literature is most likely a mistake. Mangoe (talk) 20:02, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - As per Mangoe I do not see why this non-notable error should be worthy of a Wikipedia article when it can only be based from original research and a primary source. Samwalton9 (talk) 20:11, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• We don't know that this is significant without documentation. Notability is not subjective. I've had a look, and I cannot find any sources documenting this error. And the primary source that I did find, a form from 1971, directly contradicted the article, in that it was clearly a mis-spelling of dyslexia in context. Wikipedia no more needs my personal made-directly-in-Wikipedia analysis that a U.S. government form from 1971 made an error than it needs the made-directly-in-Wikipedia zero-concrete-information analysis here. Subjects should have been already documented by the world at large outwith Wikipedia, and from what I can find, this one has not been. Uncle G (talk) 21:04, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:08, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:08, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete There is no notability in this error. --Bejnar (talk) 22:15, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 10:31, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Terran computational calendar[edit]

Terran computational calendar (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Not notable, no reliable sources in article, and I could not find any reliable sources with a Google source. Tone of the only source provided suggests this calendar was recently invented by one individual. Jc3s5h (talk) 19:17, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the redirect Terran calendar. Jc3s5h (talk) 19:24, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• I cannot find any documentation of any such thing apart from the WWW site of no known authorship that this is a copy of, either. This is unverifiable outwith an anonymous self-published WWW site with no way to determine the author's reputation for fact checking and accuracy. Uncle G (talk) 21:21, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• delete Every link is to the website of this contrivance, and there are no real mentions unless you count all the "July 15th of the Terran calendar" passages in innumerable Sci Fi works. Mangoe (talk) 22:36, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm new to Wikipedia and the author of this article. All your suppositions are correct, although I can assure you that much thought, research, documentation, trial & error, and precise programming has gone into the calendar's creation. What modifications or ommissions would you suggest to keep this on wikipedia? If the complete removal of this aricle is the unanimous decision of the wikipedia community (with the exception of the author), what kinds of things (reputation, reliable sources, etc.) must happen in order for it to become a worthy wikipedia page in the future? (Chimeraha (talk) 01:46, 30 December 2013 (UTC))[reply]

Wikipedia: Notability outlines the requirements for a topic to be worthy of an article. Wikipedia:Conflict of interest explains that even if a topic is notable, it would be inappropriate for the inventor of a calendar to write a Wikipedia article about it. Personally, I look to the recent confusion about whether 2000 or 2001 was the first year of the new millennium. Even for the most important calendar in international commerce, no one had the authority to come forward and definitely settle the matter. In view of that, I consider it impossible to replace the Gregorian calendar with some "improved" variant. I would not favor an article on a calendar proposal unless there an exceptional degree of interest in numerous reliable sources over a long period of time (~ 50 years). Jc3s5h (talk) 02:09, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I apologise for posting in the calendar reform article. I should have posted in the calendar reform talk page before making any modifications (though I didn't understand or know of the existance of talk pages before now). I believe the terran computational calendar is an excellent alternative in conjunction with (not replacement for) the current ISO_8601 standardized calendar and gregorian calendar and I believe that the article is not at all "a bad idea". This being said, I agree that this article is not inline with many wikipedia expectations, and therefore I'll withdraw my thoughts and questions on this matter over to Jc3s5h's talk page, the terran computational calendar talk page, and maybe eventually the calendar reform talk page. Chimeraha (talk) 06:59, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:04, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• delete A forum for discussing this calendar was recently established; the only two postings on it are by the calendar's designer, Chimera. It appears that this proposal does not even have sufficient following to be discussed as a notable fringe theory. SteveMcCluskey (talk) 19:01, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as self-published or original research unless reliable third-party sources can be found, per Jc3s5h.—Odysseus1479 05:35, 31 December 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. KTC (talk) 00:57, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Alexandre Pantoja[edit]

Alexandre Pantoja (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Non-notable MMA fighter (WP:MMANOT). Peter Rehse (talk) 18:31, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 18:31, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:01, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:01, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete No top tier fights, fails WP:NMMA. Jakejr (talk) 02:03, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I agree with previous comments--he fails NMMA since he has no top tier fights. Papaursa (talk) 03:08, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Doesn't pass WP:NMMA. LiberatorLX (talk) 08:01, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) | Uncle Milty | talk | 11:30, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

St. Mary's School Harda[edit]

St. Mary's School Harda (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Doesn't appear to be notable and is unreferenced. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 17:57, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As stated above, St. Mary's School Harda is not notable, doesn't have references, and uses promotional tone. Reads more like an advertisement rather than an encyclopedia. Meatsgains (talk) 18:57, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Per WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES, there is a strong presumption that secondary schools are notable, as shown by many previous debates. The school has about 3000 students through grade 12, and a search of newspapers in the area would almost certainly yield significant coverage. I see no excessively promotional language. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 19:48, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:43, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:43, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep of course per the very long-standing precedent for mainstream K12 high schools documented at WP:OUTCOMES#SCHOOLS. I don't find anything remotely promotional in the article, indeed, what would a Catholic school want to be promotional about? Is it selling something? Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 15:39, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Secondary schools are kept per long-standing precedent and consensus. -- Necrothesp (talk) 20:14, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep As per WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES. I do not see anything promotional here clearly nothing which would violate a policy like WP:Advert. Further it is one of the main schools in the city of Harda in Madhya Pradesh ,India. Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 16:19, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. KTC (talk) 00:58, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Lincoln de Sá[edit]

Lincoln de Sá (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Non-notable MMA fighter (WP:MMANOT). Peter Rehse (talk) 17:52, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 17:52, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:00, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:00, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Non notable MMA fighter, fails WP:NMMA--no top tier fights.Jakejr (talk) 02:08, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete No top tier fights to show he meets WP:NMMA. Papaursa (talk) 03:05, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Doesn't pass WP:NMMA. LiberatorLX (talk) 07:59, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Thursday Next. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 16:47, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

BookWorld[edit]

BookWorld (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

There do not appear to be independent reliable sources that establish that this fictional construct is notable separately from the fiction in which it is contained. Jerry Pepsi (talk) 17:10, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:59, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:59, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:59, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to Thursday Next. Candleabracadabra (talk) 01:26, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. So? Choor monster (talk) 20:16, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge with the article on the series, probably with significant trim - there may be some coverage of the setting by itself as more than a passing mention (modified 20:39, 5 January 2014 (UTC) --qo), but I was unable to find it. Until such sources are unearthed, I would presume the subject not sufficiently notable for its own article. --quantumobserver ^position momentum _{entanglements} 04:33, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm going to repeat my question: "So?" Nowhere is there a requirement that stand-alone notability is dependent on verifiable sources that don't mention other topics. In fact, WP:N, near the beginning, states that the issue of one or more articles for a notable topic is a distinct question. (It is stated regarding a new topic, while meeting notability requirements, might be better off as a section of an article, not a standalone. The underlying principle is identical: it might be better off standalone.)
  • The only question to be asked is whether BookWorld/Thursday Next read better as one article or as two. I see no one addressing that question. Choor monster (talk) 15:33, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well... stand-alone notability is, in fact, (almost always - exceptions for animal species and the like) dependent on significant coverage in reliable and verifiable sources. Those sources don't have to only talk about the subject in question, but they do need to give it more than a passing mention. We figure if nobody else cares to write much about a topic, neither should we - that's the idea behind the general notability guideline.

You are correct in that topics notable enough to have their own article are indeed sometimes better placed as a section of another article - the idea there is to get better context. Thing is, that's only relevant if the subject is in fact notable enough for its own article, which I do not believe this one is. --quantumobserver ^position momentum _{entanglements} 17:59, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I take it you are now agreeing with me. You previously mentioned you didn't think there were sources that talk about BookWorld without mentioning any of Thursday Next, Jurisfiction, the Socialist Republic of Wales, Pickwick, Jasper Fforde, and so on. You are now stating you don't think there are any, with or without such mentions. Well, obviously there are: the Thursday Next novels, which by the way, are our primary source of information about Thursday Next, the article you recommend merging BookWorld with. In addition, pretty much all of the longer reviews of these novels discuss BookWorld to some extent. (The books themselves cannot be relied on regarding notability, just for information.)

Look at Template:Nineteen Eighty-Four or Template:War and Peace. Article after article, and many, perhaps most of them, concern topics that do not rate reliable source mention independently of the main book itself. Should we merge all the movie adaptations of War and Peace with the novel because every last source that mentions one of the movie always mentions that it is based on Tolstoy's novel? And this is just the tiniest of tiny tips of all possible icebergs. Consider Category:Fictional universes and Category:Fantasy worlds. (And don't cite WP:OTHER. These other things here are well-accepted, not mistakes that need to be fixed.)

My point is that this AfD was created in error and should simply be withdrawn. I have no opinion regarding a followup discussion regarding possible merger, so long as it's a question about packaging, and that the red herring about notability isn't dragged in. All the Fforde fictional universes are notable, the question in each case is whether the material should be inside a book article (for example, Chromatacia), or a book series article, or a standalone article, and how fine-grained any splitting off should be done for the details. Choor monster (talk) 20:14, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• My initial reaction to this was that the whole thing was a hoax or OR and should be deleted. However, I will go along with REdirect to series. With some exceptions, we really ought not to have more than one article on any fictional universe. Peterkingiron (talk) 21:18, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I believe it best that the existing AfD be withdrawn, since it has no support, and it was based on an irrelevant criterion. Discussion regarding merger can take place at WP:PM, presumably without distracting nonsense about standalone sources for separate notability. Note that there are four articles that presumably should be merged: BookWorld, Thursday Next, SpecOps, and Characters in the Thursday Next series. Choor monster (talk) 17:55, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge is a fairly common outcome here at AfD. --quantumobserver ^position momentum _{entanglements} 18:16, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• I have seen such, but only for non-problematic merges. Here, there are four relevant articles, and three of them haven't been warned. As it is, the Nextian universe is wildly original, covering seven constantly inventive novels and even one spin-off universe. So far. I assume the calls for merge are from non-readers: see Peter's comment. Choor monster (talk) 21:17, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge into "Thursday Next" as main article plus add wp:RS sources, and remove from author navbox Template:Jasper_Fforde. Then change title "BookWorld" to disambiguation with earlier usage, such as "B.C. BookWorld" from 1987, because "bookworld" is a common term which perhaps gave illusion of wider coverage for years. -Wikid77 11:36, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Hawk Mountain Ranger School. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:36, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Civil Air Patrol Ranger[edit]

Civil Air Patrol Ranger (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Claims to be a program of the Civil Air Patrol. Exhaustive search of national Civil Air Patrol regulations does not seem to mention such a program. No outside sources could be found. WP:GNG and WP:SPIP. --KRAPENHOEFFER! TALK 21:03, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages because its notability derives entirely from the above:

Civil Air Patrol Ranger Tape (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

--KRAPENHOEFFER! TALK 21:07, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• comment The citations have suffered significant link rot because the the PA Wing which apparently has some degree of sponsorship responsibility has moved its website here while the Hawk Mountain program is now here. The obvious problem beyond that is an absolute lack of third party citations given that everything now in the article came from one of these two sites. The program plainly exists but my impression is that it doesn't have some sort of official specialist status within the CAP. Mangoe (talk) 22:47, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hence, the article should be deleted per WP:GNG. --KRAPENHOEFFER! TALK 07:22, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:12, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:12, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:13, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. It's not the most well covered topic around, but there is coverage. This article [12] was about the Ranger training camp in PA. This article is only 2 years old and spends a lot of time talking about the camp and the daily routine. [13]. This CAP regulation [14] does mention the Hawk Mountain Ranger School as a special activity that can qualify for a ribbon. Here is a resolution by the PA legislature that recognizes the 50th anniversary of the Hawk Mountain Ranger school. Could probably go on, but I think these are enough to keep it. Regarding the tape article, merge and redirect. Niteshift36 (talk) 03:28, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, the citations do establish the existence and notability of the Hawk Mountain Ranger School. It does not, however, prove that there exists such a thing as a "Civil Air Patrol Ranger". I could find no CAP regulation attesting to the existence of such a creature. --KRAPENHOEFFER! TALK 07:20, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• I guess it's too obvious to presume that you go to a ranger school to learn to be a ranger? Ok than.... try reading that second article I referenced: "...after graduating from ranger school, where Connor became a ranger, second class, and Colin earned the right to be called ranger, third class..." That alone is evidence that they exist. BTW, here is another link showing a Ranger training program in NC [15] Here are grading sheets from the courses for Advanced Ranger [16], Ranger first class [17], Ranger second class [18] and Ranger third class [19]. Note that each of these specifies that only instructors or higher ranking rangers can administer the tests. Again, pretty strong evidence that CAP rangers exist. The site for Hawk Mountain says "After this, the last part of the school involves testing, not just to graduate from the school, but also to earn Ranger Grade certifications which include 101 advancement"[20]. Here is a congresswoman from VA recognizing a cadet for attaining the Ranger first class rating. [21]. I'm not sure why you're hung up on only searching regulations, but that won't wash. Niteshift36 (talk) 23:13, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• I wouldn't say that a single throw-away line in a House of Representatives press release establishes that there is a "CAP Ranger", certainly not according to WP:GNG. The lack of recognition of such things by the national CAP, I think is prima facie evidence that these things don't exist. But let's say they do exist: where is the significant independent coverage attesting to the notability of CAP rangers? So far, all I've found is, at best self-promotion. --KRAPENHOEFFER! TALK 16:28, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• wait, you are changing your story. I presented you with sources that pass GNG (such as the one that describes the course and activities). Then you claimed it shows there is a school, but no such thing as a Ranger. So I show you sources for that. then you turn around and claim that the sources showing there is such a thing aren't enough. No skippy, that single line isn't what gets it past GNG. If all you're finding is SPS, then you aren't paying attention. First off, the CAP sources aren't SPS, they're primary sources. there is a different. Second, the NJ.com article alone will probably get this past GNG. It is significant coverage by a reliable source. Lastly, the fact that you keep claiming you searched CAP documents and can't find anything, yet turn around and try to dismiss CAP sources as SPS's borders on comedy. Frankly, I don't think you even know what you're talking about at this point.Niteshift36 (talk) 18:30, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• I still assert that there is no such thing as a Civil Air Patrol Ranger. CAP is a national organization, and if the national organization doesn't mention such creatures anywhere in their publications, that's pretty good evidence that there isn't such a beast. Furthermore, I cannot find significant independent coverage attesting to its notability. The notability guidelines require in-depth coverage from secondary sources independent of the subject. I have made good-faith attempts at finding such things, and I have not. Subject is therefore non-notable and should be deleted. --KRAPENHOEFFER! TALK 21:29, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Assert whatever you want. I have presented primary and secondary reliably sources that prove the title exists. Numerous CAP sites DO mention the term. Keep chanting that you haven't seen coverage, but the fact that I presented reliable third party coverage that DID give significant coverage counters that. I'm not some newbie here and I have been called a deletionist many times. This is not new ground for me. You're wrong and no amount of repeating yourself will change my mind. I'm done entertaining you. Niteshift36 (talk) 15:31, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• You have not given any third party coverage that gives significant coverage. I've seen throwaway lines. That is not in-depth. As for my assertion that CAP does not have rangers: the CAP corporation is a national organization. It has ground SAR personnel. I have only seen CAP refer to their ground SAR personnel as "ground team members". I will say that there is some (small) subset of CAP personnel who have begun styling themselves as rangers, following their attendance at a summer camp. There is no significant third party coverage of these "rangers". Hence, my assertion that such a class of personnel doesn't exist. The examples you have provided do not pass WP:GNG, as they are not in-depth. I can find non-CAP sources about their ground personnel, and what they do. I can find NOTHING about these rangers. I have tried. I can find things about the summer camp, but not the rangers themselves. If nobody outside the CAP organization cares to write in-depth about these rangers, then it is not notable. For a supposedly elite group within CAP that supposedly does all sorts of amazing things, I cannot find any corroboration. I can find third-party sources saying that CAP members have done things, including recovery efforts after Hurricane Katrina. But I saw no mention of any "CAP Rangers" being involved. So, maybe according to some within CAP, rangers do exist. Existence doesn't equal notability. Significant third party coverage equals notability. Going from what this article has told me, and my research on CAP operations, the only thing that distinguishes these "rangers" from the rest of CAP is a summer camp. And we already have an article on the summer camp. And even if these rangers filled a unique operational niche within CAP, the lack of third party coverage still dooms it to the fate that all non-notable subjects have: deletion. Since we're talking about a sub-organization, I'll also mention WP:ORGDEPTH. --KRAPENHOEFFER! TALK 20:16, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Are you trying to be obtuse? The article from NJ.com gives significant coverage. Just because you don't like it doesn't negate it. This shit is getting old. You talk and talk, , yet say nothing new. I'm willing to bet that the WP:BEFORE activity you were supposed to perform didn't didn't turn up those sources I provided. In any case, I've wasted enough time responding to you. Have the last word Niteshift36 (talk) 05:48, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Here is another one: [22] Niteshift36 (talk) 23:27, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• I don't think comments sections are considered good sources. --KRAPENHOEFFER! TALK 16:28, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment sections? Are you for real? Those are put there by the AUTHOR, not reader comments. The writer gathered the quotes and used them in a sidebar piece. Sheesh.Niteshift36 (talk) 18:30, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• It was a throwaway line. The article was about counter-drug programs. The comment was included as a "but CAP isn't bad" section. WP:GNG stipulates in-depth coverage of the topic. To quote "Significant coverage is more than a passing mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material." --KRAPENHOEFFER! TALK 21:29, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Please pay attention. That source was NOT offered as significant coverage to pass GNG. It was offered as an example proving that the term you claim doesn't exist, does in fact exist. Nothing more. Stop pretending like you have a point, because you have none regarding this reference. Niteshift36 (talk) 15:31, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• There is no evidence that the CAP Corporation claims to have rangers. All I have seen is that a class of members, namely those in and around Pennsylvania, have styled themselves as such. There is no significant third party coverage. The article should be deleted. --KRAPENHOEFFER! TALK 20:12, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• merge to Hawk Mountain Ranger School Like everyone else I cannot find discussion of this away from the specific program in PA. Mangoe (talk) 20:21, 26 December 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, John F. Lewis (talk) 16:59, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - I have read the articles sourced above. I have yet to see anything other than sources on the Hawk Mountain Ranger School, the aforementioned summer camp. I am not challenging the notability of this camp; I believe that this has been established. However, I cannot find anything else on these supposed Rangers, and virtually no data on what CAP Rangers do besides attend the summer camp. It may be an informal tradition, but I am not certain. I would appreciate the input of subject-matter experts on CAP and its ground operations, to see if their input could help me in the quest for sources. However, barring that, I do not believe that these Rangers are notable, hence, my nomination for deletion. --KRAPENHOEFFER! TALK 23:18, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge and redirect to Hawk Mountain Ranger School. As a former CAP cadet, I had never heard of this program. After reading the links offered, it is clear to me that the title of CAP Ranger has no verifiable existence as a recognized distinction as anything more than local significance. The lack of independent reliable sources for such a distinction is diagnostic of not being an actual program award of CAP as a whole. --Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 19:37, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge and redirect into Hawk Mountain Ranger School. Sources cited by Niteshift36 certainly prove HMRS notable - but Krapenhoeffer is correct in that they do not constitute significant coverage of the actual Rangers. --quantumobserver ^position momentum _{entanglements} 04:58, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 00:10, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Bay of Bengal Gateway[edit]

Bay of Bengal Gateway (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Similar to MEETS (cable system), (AFD closed as Delete) this is a stub about a yet-to-be built telecommunication cable. The consortium that wants to build it was formed in May of this year.

Fails WP:FUTURE: Wikipedia is not a collection of product announcements and rumors. While Wikipedia includes up-to-date knowledge about newly revealed products, short articles that consist only of product announcement information are not appropriate. Until such time that more encyclopedic knowledge about the product can be verified, product announcements should be merged to a larger topic (such as an article about the creator(s), a series of products, or a previous product) if applicable. Speculation and rumor, even from reliable sources, are not appropriate encyclopedic content. Until such time that more encyclopedic knowledge about the product can be verified, product announcements should be merged to a larger topic (such as an article about the creator(s), a series of products, or a previous product) if applicable. Speculation and rumor, even from reliable sources, are not appropriate encyclopedic content. Toddst1 (talk) 02:03, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Asia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:28, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:28, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:28, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Meets WP:GNG. Source examples:

• "Omantel inks submarine cable linking agreement". Times of Oman. May 18, 2013.
• Additional sources from April 30–May 2, 2013: [23], [24], [25], [26], [27].

 – Northamerica1000^(talk) 23:00, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

GNG about something that doesn't exist? I think you missed WP:FUTURE. Toddst1 (talk) 01:42, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not at all, per WP:FUTURE, "Individual scheduled or expected future events should be included only if the event is notable and almost certain to take place". Contracts to commence upon the Bay of Bengal Gateway project have been signed, and it's estimated to be completed and utilized sometime in the fourth quarter of 2014. See text and sources I added to the article that confirm this. Thanks, Northamerica1000^(talk) 01:51, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Just because a contract has been signed and it may be built in the future, what is so notable about this? Sources prove that some companies are working on this, but WP doesn't need to report on every business endeavor. -- P 1 9 9  ✉ 21:14, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 02:09, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Procedural close and then restart this Discussion in a new Nomination. For some reason, this shows up on the main WP:AFD page as linking to the Talk Page rather than the Article. Technically, that would be WP:Miscellany for Deletion. The Mysterious El Willstro (talk) 08:04, 25 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - I do not see WP:FUTURE indicating planned or proposed future projects ought to be deleted.

Stating the policy, It is appropriate to report discussion and arguments about the prospects for success of future proposals and projects or whether some development will occur, if discussion is properly referenced.

Per WP:GNG, this is a keep.

TheOriginalSoni (talk) 13:03, 28 December 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, John F. Lewis (talk) 16:58, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per substantial coverage in reliable independent sources. Candleabracadabra (talk) 01:28, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Per Northamerica1000. ~KvnG 21:19, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. KTC (talk) 01:00, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Angela Via (album)[edit]

Angela Via (album) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Non-notable album, fails WP:NALBUMS, no sources to suggest notability. JayJay^{What did I do?} 16:12, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Samwalton9 (talk) 20:13, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:39, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Given the circumstances surrounded the aborted release and lack of charting position, this album would have needed a good amount of coverage in multiple mainstream sources to prove notability. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 16:45, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:12, 30 December 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. (non-admin closure) JayJay^{What did I do?} 03:26, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I Don't Care (Angela Via song)[edit]

I Don't Care (Angela Via song) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Non-notable song that hardly charted, fails WP:NSONGS, no sources to suggest notability. JayJay^{What did I do?} 16:09, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:37, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:08, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:08, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, both recordings charted - David Gerard (talk) 23:05, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, two versions charted nationally, notability established.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 01:44, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. "Hardly charted" = charted. Doctorhawkes (talk) 10:01, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - clearly meets WP:NSONGS - charting singles with verifiable references. Dan arndt (talk) 00:46, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. KTC (talk) 01:03, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Poku short film[edit]

Poku short film (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Can't find sources to establish notability, created by an editor whose account name suggests they are a PR company Dougweller (talk) 16:03, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:31, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:31, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Delete for now. Searches show this seems TOO SOON. Allow undeletion or recreation when Malayalam-reading Wikipedians can come up with sources. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 13:42, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedily deleted by User:GB fan per CSD A9. (non-admin closure) • Gene93k (talk) 18:45, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Race Against Time (Rogue Republic album)[edit]

The Race Against Time (Rogue Republic album) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Self-published musical recording. Fails WP:NALBUM. - MrX 15:51, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:23, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete per WP:CSD#A9. The band's article has just been deleted. • Gene93k (talk) 13:27, 30 December 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:RHaworth (G4: Recreation of a page that was deleted per a deletion discussion) (non-admin closure) | Uncle Milty | talk | 16:39, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ennaji ahmed[edit]

Ennaji ahmed (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Article can be included in fr.wikipedia.org. Itsalleasy (talk) 15:28, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete as recreated AfD content (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ahmed Ennaji). What we have here is the old invert-the-title-trick.- MrX 15:42, 29 December 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 that the article is clearly promotional in its current format, so I would be inclined to delete this as CSD G11. The article will require extensive reworking to fix this, but I am happy to userify it for anyone who wishes to undertake that work. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 10:35, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Igor Ganikowskij[edit]

Igor Ganikowskij (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Perhaps a notable artist, but in that case WP:NUKEANDPAVE applies because of the poor quality of the article (or should I say, CV). References are given for some of the extensive quotations, but they are unclear. Author should have awaited comments on their AfC submission. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 15:07, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - unquestionably promotional. Deb (talk) 15:33, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Delete - Deeply flawed. No citations besides a URL leading to a personal website. Doesn't seem to be written from a NPOV at all, it reads basically like a resume. Breadblade (talk) 02:25, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete A colossal mess of an article, for all of the reasons Breadblade mentioned... and probably a lot more.LM2000 (talk) 02:41, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and improve The painter is notable although the article seems to be a mess. I have added a couple of references from the article on Russian wiki (that seems to be better written) and removed a few eyesores although much more work is needed Alex Bakharev (talk) 03:02, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:15, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:15, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:15, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:16, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Currently the article is little more than an advert for the subject. Number 57 22:09, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak delete. Perhaps userfy if the creator will speak up and promise to rework this. The article is a terrible, terrible mess, but the individual may be notable. Still, this cv/gibberish mess is hardly salvageable. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 22:41, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was snowball keep / withdrawn by nominator (non-admin closure). ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 22:38, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Pussy[edit]

Pussy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Neither fish nor fowl nor good red meat, the only thing that seems to hold this page together are the letters in the word. Dougweller (talk) 15:04, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, no valid reason for deletion given. It's clearly an encyclopedia article about a word, not a mere dicdef. Could use more sources and some cleanup, but that's not what RFD is for. Aɴɢʀ (talk) 17:47, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Aɴɢʀ (talk) 17:49, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. Aɴɢʀ (talk) 17:51, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, Apart from its offensive name, the article was really informative. OccultZone (talk) 18:48, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Though it is offensive, crude, or tough to read with my family around, the page deserves to keep. Like OccultZone stated, "the article was really informative" and well referenced. I don't understand the explanation as to why this page was PRODed. Seems like the initial reaction to reading the page is to get rid of it however, that reason does not suffice. Meatsgains (talk) 19:08, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy keep and close. No rationale provided by the nominator. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 20:20, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, no rationale for deletion (I'd NAC it myself, but I'm not on my main account and would rather not) Lukeno52 (tell Luke off here) (legitimate alternate account of Lukeno94) 20:28, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Not as common in American as in British English, but a good article. For "proper" use citations, M. Gandhi -- A helpless mouse is not non-violent because he is always eaten by pussy. He would gladly eat the murderess if he could, but he ever tries to flee from her. — Preceding unsigned comment added by OtterSmith (talk • contribs)

• Withdraw nomination - ok, my take is clearly wrong, so I'm withdrawing this. Sorry about that. Dougweller (talk) 21:56, 29 December 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 -- Y not? 18:30, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Prakhin International Literary Award[edit]

Prakhin International Literary Award (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Not seeing that this is a noteworthy award. Cannot find reliable third party sources about the award to build an article. Thargor Orlando (talk) 14:09, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• strong delete created by a single purpose editor with possible COI. References like this [28] do not even refer to the award. These are only small 1 line references [29] ,[30]. This one [31] is a self published source by a winner of the award. There is no coverage in mainstream press of this supposed international award.. LibStar (talk) 15:09, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:03, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:55, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as per nom. Most references are not about the award, but only make brief mention of it, proving existence, not notability. -- P 1 9 9  ✉ 21:14, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Delete, of the sources that are independent of the subject, all of them merely mention the award briefly, usually in the context of a particular individual winning one. I would be much more comfortable that this award was notable if there were independent coverage of its history and importance. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 10:37, 8 January 2014 (UTC).[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. KTC (talk) 01:04, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hörspielcrew[edit]

Hörspielcrew (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Although this has a German-language article, it is reliant on only one primary source and seems not to prove notability. The sourcs here do not establish notability. Boleyn (talk) 09:16, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Austria-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:17, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:17, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Fails WP:BAND. Even the link to their 'official' website doesn't go anywhere. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:28, 23 December 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, Daniel (talk) 11:39, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as non-notable per sub. --Lockley (talk) 02:23, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 10:38, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Secular conservatism[edit]

Secular conservatism (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Appears to be original research, no sources have been provided. --TFD (talk) 10:21, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Secular Right (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

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

Secular left (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

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

• Delete per TFD, unsourced stub since 2010 and doesn't seem to be an established term anywhere else. A similar page is Secular Right. Citobun (talk) 14:27, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks. I have added it above. TFD (talk) 19:08, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• I turned up a source by Chip Berlet that documents this, alongside the "theocratic right" and the "hard right", with 3 minutes' use of Google Books. I then turned up a later work that cited and used Berlet's terminology. What on Earth made you think that this wasn't a term? Did you look anywhere? The article is amateurish and crap. But that's a reason to show your mad skillz as encyclopaedia writers, by mercilessly making the article better and demonstrating that people with accounts are here to write rather than sit in armchairs and tag. It's not a reason to take the no-effort route, not put in the effort of looking for sources onesself, and proceed to AFD. Get Berlet 1998, p. 250–252 harvnb error: no target: CITEREFBerlet1998 (help) and Downing 2002, p. 137 harvnb error: no target: CITEREFDowning2002 (help) in hand and write! And try to read some of the several sources that document this in relation to the European Union, which are just as easy to locate, too. Uncle G (talk) 20:20, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Berlet, Chip (1998). "Who Is Mediating the Storm? Right-Wing Alternative Information Networks.". In Kintz, Linda; Lesage, Julia (eds.). Media, Culture, and the Religious Right. University of Minnesota Press. ISBN 9780816630851.
  • Downing, John D.H. (2002). "International Communication and The Extremist Right". In Pendakur, Manjunath; Harris, Roma M. (eds.). Citizenship and Participation in the Information Age. G — Reference,Information and Interdisciplinary Subjects Series. University of Toronto Press. ISBN 9781551930350.
    • There is a difference between a term and a noun modified by an adjective. A term has a specific definition and is used consistently by different authors. No one doubts that one can be conservative and secular. Can you provide a source that defines the "term" and explains its origins and use by different authors? And please don't say it means a conservative who is secular. TFD (talk) 20:36, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • My point about not looking and no effort is made yet again. I just did. Two, in fact. Complete with exact page numbers. Now go and read what you've been pointed at, and look at the further sources that discuss secular conservatism in the EU which are dead easy to find simply with some applied effort. It's a matter of mere minutes, as I said. Uncle G (talk) 22:08, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I looked at the sources and they all use the terms differently. However your two sources (here are their links: [32][33]) do seem to have a specific concept. Downing says, "Berlet proposes we categorize the extremist right into the secular conservative right, the theocratic right and the "hard right." Effectively, the secular conservative right would cover groups with strongly reactiionary views but normally working electorally and and without recourse to terrorism. Within the U.S. this would signify a spectrum from the Heritage Foundation to the John Birch Society. In France in would cover the Front Natiional, in Italy the Alleanza Nationale, in Austria the Freedom Party, in Britain the British National Party, in Russia Zhirinovsky's [Liberal Democrats], and One Nation in Australia.

Is your suggestion that this article should be about Berlet's category? In that case it fails WP:NEOLOGISM. It would be better to have an article about Chip Berlet's theory of the "extremist right". Ironically no one has bothered to add anything about this to his article.

Even if we were to follow this path, it would mean blanking the article, since it is about an entirely different topic and does not mention Berlet, and starting again. Much better just to delete and if someone wants to write it then they can do so. Are you going to do that?

TFD (talk) 23:41, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Incidentally, the term Berlet uses is "secular conservative right", not secular conservatism. Is it the same thing? Should we merge the articles Secular conservatism and Secular Right and perhaps re-name it? TFD (talk) 01:36, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This appears from the sources to be an established concept, but I do think Secular conservatism and Secular Right should be merged (the latter into Secular conservatism). Ithinkicahn (talk) 04:14, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Conservatism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:01, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:01, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:01, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:01, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - As a non-notable neologism (at best). An attempt to lay out a concept to juxtapose to social conservatism. The non-notable neologism Secular Right is a similar effort to create a phrase from whole cloth to juxtapose to Religious Right. There are traditional forms of conservatism that do not base themselves around religion; this ideology and movement isn't commonly called either of these things, and a merge of the two non-notable neologisms to make a somewhat longer dictionary definition stub is inappropriate. Carrite (talk) 20:08, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete That not all conservatives are religious, or that the Relgious Right does not comprise the entire Right, though true, is not by itself justification for an article. This is not a specific topic. 'DGG (at NYPL)' (talk) 17:40, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per TFD and Carrite. WP:OR. --Bejnar (talk) 22:18, 7 January 2014 (UTC) In case I wasn't clear, delete all three. --Bejnar (talk) 22:20, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. G12 — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 04:14, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Iqra University North Nazimabad Campus[edit]

Iqra University North Nazimabad Campus (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

This article is basicly a collection of 4 biographies of living persons. The only source cites is official web site of their University. No independent reliable sources. This fails WP:BLP. The author deleted PROD tag, so I'm bringing this ti discussion. Vanjagenije (talk) 10:13, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. I would say merge to Iqra University but there seems to be nothing in the article worth transferring. Most of article is spamtastic or biogs.TheLongTone (talk) 14:51, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete as copyvio. Everything but the first sentence is copied from the school's website. Tagged for G12. • Gene93k (talk) 01:59, 30 December 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. Per the below discussion, it is apparent that the article's subject has not been significantly covered by reliable sources. Therefore, while the author may be notable in the future, at this time there is no policy-backed reasoning for this articles inclusion. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 16:58, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Debora Geary[edit]

Debora Geary (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

The subject appears to be the author of several self published books (Fireweed Publishing) but shows no results in a Google News search. I did find one book review in News Library:

• Baltimore Examiner (MD) - May 9, 2012, Book review of 'A Modern Witch' by Debora Geary, Title: A Modern Witch (A Modern Witch Series: Book One) Author: Debora Geary Publisher: Fireweed Publishing Publication Date: March 12, 2011 Genre: Fantasy Review: — Keithbob • Talk • 22:34, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete appears not to be in the same ballpark as WP:AUTHOR Neonchameleon (talk) 23:21, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:21, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:22, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Geary is that rare thing, a highly successful self-published author working outside the normal publishing system. She is very popular, her library holdings at LibraryThing[34] put her in the top 1% of 1% of all authors in all languages (ranked #10,201). The Telegraph said "A Modern Witch which recently ranked number one on the Kindle best seller list,"[35] while GalleyCat reported "Debora Geary rocketed to the top of our Self-Published Bestseller List with her Modern Witch series". Self-published authors have a much more difficult time because they don't have access to the publishing house marketing machine that create the normal book reviews through established channels, but in this case I think we should give extra weight to the popularity of the author. -- GreenC 20:28, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Neonchameleon. Not notable. Ashbeckjonathan (talk) 17:01, 25 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 08:11, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: Even though I think WP:AUTHOR is too stringent (it sets a much higher bar than is generally applied to authors' articles in Wikipedia, and is out of sync with guidelines on biographies of singers and athletes), the subject of this article seems to fail the basic GNG: I can't see a listed source that provides reliable, third-party, in-depth coverage. Because this is a BLP, we have to err on the side of deletion to protect Wikipedia and the subject of the article. --Slashme (talk) 13:28, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, probably more successful than your average self-published author, but there are no reliable sources (as in, not Facebook, blogs, forum posts, etc) that talk about Geary and why she and her work are notable. There are a couple of brief mentions in reliable sources, but these don't confirm anything except that she's an author who self-releases books for the Kindle. I don't think she meets the WP:BIO notability criteria. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 10:42, 8 January 2014 (UTC).[reply]
• Keep, The thing that caught me about this article is that she's made a #1 Kindle best seller list - see kbooks. There's the magazine article on the first comment and: telegraph article and publishers weekly. Books here --CaroleHenson (talk) 02:46, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply, the mention in the Telegraph is a single sentence that offers her as an example of a successful self published author, and she's not mentioned in the linked PW article at all. WP:GNG requires 'significant' coverage, and I don't think this qualifies. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 08:41, 9 January 2014 (UTC).[reply]
  • Reply - Understood. She seems to be on a good roll, so hopefully in a year or two there will be more reliable sources to prove notability.--CaroleHenson (talk) 03:17, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. G3 — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 20:14, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Viknu Tribe[edit]

Viknu Tribe (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

The sources don't support what is in the article and I can't find any evidence of there actually being a Viknu tribe. Chuy1530 (talk) 06:28, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete. A Norwegian tribe that wrote in hieroglyphics on papyrus? Blatant hoax. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:01, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  I've speedy tagged it - there's no point people wasting their time tagging it for improvements. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 20:10, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete as blatant hoax. A rare language spoken by many peoples? Getaway.TheLongTone (talk) 16:20, 29 December 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. KTC (talk) 01:08, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Touchtalent[edit]

Touchtalent (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

• Advertisement? Is it notable? Anthony Appleyard (talk) 06:17, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, cited independant sources are about start up, which only establish it exists. Note that article creator & another major editor appear to be associated with the organisation: another self-promotional article. Nature of organisation generates a lot of hits, but didn't find anything solid.TheLongTone (talk) 23:33, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - I nominated the article for a (speedy) delete a couple of days ago. The lead for the last version of the article read: "Touchtalent is one of art showcasing size for professional" and the remainder of the article consisted mainly of lists. To the author's credit, there have been significant improvements, but I did an extensive search, and found no substantial coverage of the company. Delete as non-notable. JSFarman (talk) 17:24, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:56, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:56, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:56, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:56, 30 December 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 policy backed arguments for this article's inclusion have been presented. I'm deleting the article at this time, but any editor can feel free to contact me for the article's content if needed for merging. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 17:08, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Bollywood Hundred Crore Club[edit]

Bollywood Hundred Crore Club (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

List of highest-grossing Bollywood films already exists and has been suggested by someone to be merged into List of highest-grossing Indian films worldwide. This is totally redundant, misleading--contains wrong infomation and sources are not consistent for all films, meaning a source that highly inflates gross amount for all films, is used to source only few films on this page, thereby making them look higher ranked when they are not. This page is also subjected to high level of vandalism and very few Wiki-administrators 've knowledge about the subject in question. Joyceevan (talk) 05:17, 29 December 2013 (UTC) Also, a day 'll come when there 'll be hundred 100-Crore grossing films. It's ever enlarging. So best is to delete this aricle and list the highest grossing films on List of highest-grossing Bollywood films.--Joyceevan (talk) 05:45, 29 December 2013 (UTC) Merged Joyceevan' comments into one. Please don't use star mark again & again for different comments of yours. It will be hindrance while counting vote. - Jayadevp13 05:53, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong oppose/Keep for now especially since multiple discussions regarding the content & status of this particular article is going on here and here. You should have waited for a few more days before taking a decision. - Jayadevp13 05:27, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • That is why I nominated it--Joyceevan (talk) 05:36, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong oppose/Keep for now especially since it is now in much significance in bollywood ,trade magazines,new channels,prin and electronic media.--Nehapant19 (talk) 06:33, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Despite the multitudinous cutting and re-cutting and re-re-cutting of the same data in different ways, the current content is completely redundant to List of highest-grossing Bollywood films and should be deleted / merged (if there is anything encyclopedic in this article which is not already in the other article)- with extreme prejudice against recreation in anything close to this format. However, the concept of the "100 Crore Club" as a marketing gimmick / promotional hypemobile is potentially worthy of an all text article which covers the "concept of the 'club' "- where the term came from, how it is used, its importance (or perceived importance) in the industry and by raving fans , the critique of it as being a purely promotional concept of no actual value etc. - as opposed to lists of "members". -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 18:04, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment The article in question was since moved (a couple of times [36] [37] [38] ) to Bollywood films grossing above 100 crore. Also, there was already an active merge discussion involving several similar articles. Not sure if it is appropriate to proceed with this AfD until while the merge discussion is in play. Dl2000 (talk) 18:30, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy procedural keep - Ref WP:SK, the nominator is now effectively banned with an indefinite block. The parallel merge discussion is also proposing significant changes to the article which will likely render the original deletion rationale void (WP:ATD). Dl2000 (talk) 04:49, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment, I almost just closed the discussion on this basis, but since there are experienced editors in good standing agreeing with the nomination, I think it's best to leave it open to be closed in the usual way. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 10:44, 8 January 2014 (UTC).[reply]
• Strong oppose/Comment As creator pf the page i oppose and also try to make my point clear. The unaceptable moving of the page from the name "Bollywood 100 Crore Club" to "Bollywood films grossing above 100 crore" by an unauthorized user User talk:Nehapant19 who has been warned several times for doing mess in wikipedia different pages has destroyed the page. In the 2013 Zee Cine Awards directors of Bollywood 100 Crore Club were awarded with a special award namng The Power Club Box Office(100 crore club award). So the page must be moved to its original name to protect it. Dr. Shahid Alam(Talk to Me) 22:40, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, you have said that many times. However, that is not a reason to keep a page. Please specify what policies you are basing your rationale upon. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 22:48, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:47, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:47, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:47, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - per WP:NOT. "Bollywood Hundred Crore Club" (100-crore club of Bollywood, 100 crore club in Bollywood, Bollywood 100 Crore Club) is a neologism, not a subtopic of List of highest-grossing Bollywood films. However, the current article attempts to convey factual accuracy along the lines of List of highest-grossing Bollywood films, but the topic appears to be nothing more than a marketing gimmick. An expert in the area notes in this article:

  Actor Arshad Warsi, who is best known for his role of Circuit in the Munnabhai series and Babban in filmmaker Abhishek Chaubey’s Ishqiya, finds Bollywood’s R100 crore club "lame". The 44-year-old, who has been in the industry for around a decade, says: "I find this whole Rs. 100 crore club very stupid. How can every film releasing lately do a business of Rs. 100 crores all of a sudden?"

An article meeting WP:NEO, such as the draft at User:TheRedPenOfDoom/sandbox/B100CC, is fine. -- Jreferee (talk) 04:40, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Jreferee: If you look at almost the end part of this discussion than you would see that we were thinking of replacing the entire contents of the article with that in User:TheRedPenOfDoom/sandbox/B100CC. But we couldn't possibly do it because of an open AfD and merger proposal. - Jayadevp13 05:11, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

AfD takes precedent over the non-AfD merge proposals and the closer of this AfD should close out an non-AfD merge or other discussion related to what to do with Bollywood Hundred Crore Club. The default length of an RfC and merge proposals[39] is 30 days whereas an AfD can be closed after seven days. Given the multiple discussions, it was correct to bring the issue to AfD to get a clear resolution and have a clear time frame as to when the issue can receive a consensus decision. Deleting Bollywood Hundred Crore Club instead of replacing the entire contents of the article will give consensus to keep out the tables etc. from any future of the Bollywood Hundred Crore Club page. Deleting only affects a particular topic. Deleting a list article on Bollywood Hundred Crore Club does not prevent subsequently moving User:TheRedPenOfDoom/sandbox/B100CC to the same location. -- Jreferee (talk) 05:41, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete or Merge (if possible) to List of highest-grossing Bollywood films per User:TheRedPenOfDoom. I supported the merge proposal at Talk:List_of_highest-grossing_Indian_films_worldwide#Merge_discussion, but have been holding off from posting here until an admin commented on whether it was correct to bring it to AFD. As Dr. Shahid Alam points out above, this page has been subject to extensive edit warring and page moves. This, as I see it, is a clue that the page name is part of the problem, and will continue to attract this sort of discordant editing. The neologism "100 Crore Club" is notable enough for a a brief, referenced mention in List of highest-grossing Bollywood films. Ruby Murray 16:12, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• delete If there's anything significant, merge it to List of highest-grossing Bollywood films Andy Dingley (talk) 11:17, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Nomination Withdrawn. WP:TNT applies - thanks to Acb314 for his work on the article ... I would have thought deleting and starting over would have been easiest, but he proved me wrong . Thanks again. (non-admin closure) Go Phightins! 03:15, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Neil Cornrich[edit]

Neil Cornrich (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Absolute puffery obviously written by someone affiliated with Cornrich, a paid editor in all likelihood; while the aforementioned, in and of themselves, are not reasons for deletion, the fact that the article, as it stands, contains nothing useful that is not drivel that is blatantly biased indicates that, even if Cornrich meets GNG, which though he did receive some coverage, such as in these articles, is debatable ... he seems to qualify under criterion 4 as well as possibly criterion 8 of WP:DEL-REASON. I was going to simply strip the article of the promotional content into a one-to-two sentence stub, but there is too much spam here even just to do that. Go Phightins! 04:38, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep and improve through the normal editing process. If Cornrich paid for this article, he should ask for a refund, as any competent paid editor wouldn't list a slew of bare URLs as references, especially since most go back to Cornrich's own website. The fact that Cornrich is known to be publicity shy also speaks against paid editing. That being said, Cornrich is a notable figure in the business of NFL football, as a Google Books search shows, as well as the articles linked by the nominator. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:27, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep article needs a rewrite but there are references in the article showing news coverage. It needs work but I think something can be salvaged. (Update - I have made some changes and removed a section to the talk page) Acb314 (talk) 11:10, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Acb314 has gone to town on the article, so I don't know if WP:TNT needs to go into effect here.LM2000 (talk) 02:46, 30 December 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. Courcelles 08:31, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Church of the Saviour (Syracuse, New York)[edit]

Church of the Saviour (Syracuse, New York) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

No indication in the article that it satisfies the relevant notability guideline WP:ORG or the general notability guideline WP:N. Wikipedia is not a directory of every church in the world. Edison (talk) 02:58, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:36, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:36, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:36, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:36, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Prominent Anglo-Catholic church in upper New York which has undergone a number of notable events (particularly fires) and is noteworthy for among other things its pioneering use of free pews (a big deal in the Nineteenth Century). Despite what the nominator says, this is not written like a directory listing. JASpencer (talk) 12:46, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep. I have not found much in the way of online sources for this church, but its distinguished architectural and design lineage, as outlined in the current article, strongly suggest some level of notability. --Arxiloxos (talk) 15:22, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - The sources used in the article are not independent of the article topic, but a quick Google search turned up a couple of third-party sources that lead me to conclude that people not affiliated with this church consider it notable for its history, architecture, and/or organ: American Guild of Organists, New York Landmarks Conservancy. Also, I am amused to find that someone in England has linked to this article (and reproduced the photo) as a source of information on church architecture: [40] --Orlady (talk) 17:44, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 00:08, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

First Presbyterian Church of Marcellus[edit]

First Presbyterian Church of Marcellus (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

It does not appear to satisfy the relevant notability guideline, WP:ORG or the general notability guideline WP:N, although it is a very nicely written article. Edison (talk) 02:50, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• keep seems to have substantial material from a book, and also a newpaper ref. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 07:21, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Well-written, historically significant. DA Sonnenfeld (talk) 15:15, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Historically significant and has independently verifiable third party sources.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 15:49, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep while some parts of the article do appear to descend into trivia (for example, a complete list of pastors), the church does appear to be of local historical notability and reliable sourcing doesn't seem to be a problem. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 22:13, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I wrote this several years ago, so it can go if it needs. Mitch32^{(New digs, new life, same old stubborn.)} 00:02, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Adequately sourced, notability established.LM2000 (talk) 02:52, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:34, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:34, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:34, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:35, 30 December 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 WP:CSD#A7 by User:Secret (non-admin closure). Vulcan's Forge (talk) 04:22, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Antoine Lami[edit]

Antoine Lami (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Declined PROD. My rationale still stands "None of the sources are independent, or from reliable sources". Person seems up-and-coming, but does not seem notable. Pinging @Suriel1981:, who endorsed the PROD. Chris857 (talk) 01:48, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - my PROD endorsement rationale was that the article appears to violate WP:NOTADVERTISING with its promotional tone and WP:CRYSTAL with its details of media to be released in 2015. Additionally, current notability is not clearly established, indeed the Twitter account linked has 4 followers and the Youtube account just one. I have additional concerns regarding the creator that I have raised elsewhere. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 02:07, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albania-related deletion discussions. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 02:09, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 02:09, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 02:09, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, this was speedied, so can someone come along and close? Chris857 (talk) 04:12, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Michig (talk) 09:02, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sunnydale High School library[edit]

Sunnydale High School library (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Non-notable fictional library. Those few sources that do mention the library mention it in passing, stating that it served as the meeting place for the characters for the first four seasons and that it had a lot of books in it. That's it. The notability of the series is WP:NOTINHERITED by every fictional construct within it. Jerry Pepsi (talk) 01:36, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete The main independent source that mentions it is a blog, and therefore not a reliable source. Not notable outside of the world of the fictional work. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:01, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as above. Normally a merge would be preferable for this sort of thing, but there's really no in-depth sourced content to merge anywhere. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 22:04, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:08, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:08, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per everything above, not notable.LM2000 (talk) 02:54, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:02, 30 December 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. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 10:45, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nandhi (film)[edit]

Nandhi (film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

I can't find any sources that demonstrate notability. The references in the article appear to go to user-generated content, similar to IMDb. Powers ^T 01:14, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Powers ^T 15:07, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Evano1van(எவனோ ஓருவன்) 16:56, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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