< 12 February 14 February >
Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Cumberland County Schools. WP:SNOW and WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES. The Bushranger One ping only 09:31, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Elizabeth M. Cashwell Elementary School[edit]

Elizabeth M. Cashwell Elementary School (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)

Elementary school. Two sentence article. Appears to be non-notable per wikipedia standards, though there is slight, non-notable, run-of-the-mill coverage, and it certainly does exist. Delete of stand-alone article (w/redirect to whatever makes sense would be fine) appears to be in order. Epeefleche (talk) 23:49, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:04, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:05, 19 February 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. Yunshui 雲‍水 09:57, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Apeiron (physics journal)[edit]

Apeiron (physics journal) (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)

Moribund journal of unclear notability. No independent sources, not indexed in any selective database. Tagged for missing references for 2.5 years with no improvement forthcoming. Does not meet WP:NJournals or WP:GNG. Randykitty (talk) 23:34, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

2. From WP:NJOURNALS: "This guideline is independent from the other subject-specific notability guidelines, such as WP:BIO, Wikipedia:Notability (media), etc.: It is possible for a journal not to be notable under the provisions of this guideline but still to be notable in some other way, under one of the other subject-specific notability guidelines." - So WP:NJOURNALS is a straw man here. 3. From WP:GNG: "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article or stand-alone list." - The problem here is that Apeiron as a topic also necessarily refers to an organisation of people and its contributors, which includes clearly notable physicists and astronomers such as Halton Arp, the late Mendel Sachs, Jean-Claude Pecker, and Jean-Pierre Vigier (former assistant to Louis de Broglie, and who would have been Einstein's assistant but was denied entry to the U.S.). User:Randykitty, who launched this Afd, removed a long-standing reference to Jean-Pierre Vigier at 07:25, 11 February 2013 - calling the move "some cleanup" - just three minutes before first nominating the article for deletion under WP:PROD. Silent Key (talk) 04:46, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment 1/ "Moribund journal" was intended only as a description, it is indeed not a reason to delete. Some journals that were disestablished long ago are still notable (notability is not temporary). For a journal that's been "suspended indefinitively", that seems an apt description. 2/ NJournals is kind of an extra way for journals to establish notability. If a journal doesn't meet it (as does this one), there can indeed be other ways to satisfy our guidelines. 3/ The cleanup edit referred to is this one. I did not remove any references, but I did remove an unsourced statement concerning Vigier. Even if that statement could be sourced, it does nothing to establish notability, which is not inherited. So in short, I don't see how your remarks constitute a valid argument to keep this journal. --Randykitty (talk) 08:54, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:14, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:14, 19 February 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. Yunshui 雲‍水 09:55, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Rachel Maycock[edit]

Rachel Maycock (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)

Where do we start? Created as a selfbio in March 2007 by RachMontgomeryshire, I then nominated WP:Prod in February 2012, which HJ Mitchell removed as he felt that she was "notable". Still can't find sufficent refs to support many of the claims within the present article, and even if we could, we would suddenly have a whole plethora of civil servants and failed political nominees which wouldn't meet the present set criteria for WP:NOTABILITY within WP:BIOGRAPHY. It's personally one of those articles which for me questions whether we are an encyclopedia with standards of entry, or on a biography basis at the lower end a cross between a paid-for entry in Who's Who and a semi-notables telephone directory. Rgds, Trident13 (talk) 22:13, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wales-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:13, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:13, 19 February 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 closed as moot. Article was deleted by User:Sphilbrick as a copyright violation. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 16:36, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The name Komal[edit]

The name Komal (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)

Unencyclopedic: reads like a cross between a dictionary entry and a horoscope. No sources or evidence for the claims made. In any case it seems to be a close paraphrase of another source, but I'm not sure if the original is copyright (since it's a wiki). —Noiratsi (talk) 21:27, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. 21:38, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. 21:38, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 21:38, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy keep. (non-admin closure)

No nominal policy/guideline related delete argument from the nominator. A WP:BEFORE nets hundreds of results from some very notable sources such as NY Magazine, LA Times, ABC News, Huffington Post, and the UK Metro in addition to the few sources provided in the article. Most sources cite the meme as "huge" or "enormously popular". Rapid consensus of the community to keep. Mkdwtalk 00:10, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Harlem shake (meme)[edit]

Harlem shake (meme) (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)

Reason Shniken (talk) 20:04, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is not encyclopaedic

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. (Non-administrator closure). Eduemoni↑talk↓ 00:41, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Glenavon School[edit]

Glenavon School (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)

Primary school. Paucity of refs for its claims. Appears to be non-notable per wikipedia standards, though there is standard non-notable, run-of-the-mill coverage and it certainly does exist. Not to be confused with the Canadian school by the same name. Article creator has just a half a dozen edits to his name. Delete of stand-alone article (w/redirect to whatever makes sense would be fine) appears to be in order. Epeefleche (talk) 19:21, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. gadfium 21:06, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. gadfium 21:06, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note for closing admin: If this AfD is closed as 'redirect', please remember to include the ((R from school)) template on the redirect page. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 23:12, 14 February 2013 (UTC) [reply]

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

The result was redirect to Jay McGraw#RumorFix. (non-admin closure) LlamaAl (talk) 01:20, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

RumorFix[edit]

RumorFix (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 website lacking ghits and gnews of substance. Appears to be more of an advertisement. Edited by a media group. reddogsix (talk) 18:27, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about a relevant entertainment news site that is often quoted by mainstream media including CBS News, the Huffington Post and People magazine. It is on par with www.celebuzz.com and www.gossipcop.com, which both have Wikipedia pages. Richardayoub (talk) 20:00, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sl33pyriceboi (talk) 20:24, 13 February 2013 (UTC)Why is this article even flagged? It's just like any other entertainment entity/icon here on wiki. How is it advertising? That's a basic bio of what the page is about[reply]

  • Also, as far as its association with notable persons goes, that does not extend automatic notability to the website, as notability is WP:NOTINHERITED. Unless I can find RS that's about the website specifically, I'm leaning towards redirecting this to Jay McGraw since he is one of the lead figures involved in the website's creation.Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 23:05, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Tokyogirl79 thank you for your thoughtful comments. I agree that RumorFix should be listed as part of Jay McGraw's article -- that's a great idea. But, I also believe that it is "notable" on its own account.

You may know that a publication, whether it be print or electronic, gains "notability" -- not by people writing articles about them -- but by others quoting them.

Wikipedia is an electronic encyclopedia -- and because of that Wikipedia is on the forefront of recognizing digital properties like RumorFix.

As you may know RumorFix has gained respect and recognition of the following: CBS News ABC News CNN Huffington Post Entertainment Tonight Extra Access Hollywood WetPaint Entertainment People Magazine Us Weekly omg! Yahoo MSN Wonderwall Perez Hilton and almost 2,000 others

RumorFix is not unlike the Pasadena Star News,[1] which has it's own article. It's not unlike WetPaint that has it's own article.[2]

It is a publication that is respected, quoted and notable.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.228.192.75 (talk) 01:46, 15 February 2013

  • That's not really how notability works here on Wikipedia. Topics pass notability guidelines because they receive coverage that directly talks about them specifically rather than just name dropping them in relation to other subjects. What sets WetPaint as notable is that the site has received coverage about the site itself in multiple venues such as Time Magazine listing it as one of their best websites for 2007. RumorFix hasn't gotten that yet. They've been mentioned in various places, but they're all trivial mentions that say that the site has commented on the story du'jour or mentioning the site as an aside. The news outlets and sites you're mentioning didn't actually talk about the site itself as part of a news story. Even if some of them have, you have to show that there is more coverage other than people commenting on the site's launch, which is conspicuously absent at this point in time. The thing about trivial mentions is that no amount of trivial mentions make up for a lack of in-depth coverage in reliable sources. A site mentioning the site is not the same thing as the website receiving coverage that would be considered showing notability. It's just far too soon for this to have its own article. It might merit its own article in the future, but for right now there just isn't enough to justify it passing WP:WEB. But in general though, pointing out that such and such a newspaper or website has an article doesn't really pertain to this AfD. Those are those websites and papers and RumorFix is RumorFix. The presence of another article means nothing, as it could just be that those other articles haven't been nominated for deletion or that they meet notability guidelines that RumorFix does not.Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 08:14, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't believe the mentions of RumorFix by respected publications qualifies as a "trivial mention." According to the guidelines, RumorFix must have "information from reliable sources that provide evidence of notability." And, when AP, People, USA Today, CNN, CBS News, ABC News, Huffington Post, LA Times and others have written articles quoting RumorFix, they have written a complete article about a news story that was broken by RumorFix. It is not a "trivial mention." They have rewritten a story that first broke on RumorFix and have pulled quotes directly from the article -- in most cases 75 percent of the article is from information gathered by RumorFix.

Richardayoub (talk) 03:35, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:57, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 19:44, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Tyrone A. Mitchell[edit]

Tyrone A. Mitchell (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)

Fails WP:MILNG which says a serviceman is notable for getting either the highest possible medal for his military, or multiple recipient of the second, Mitchell is being recommended for a medal that doesn't fit either qualification.

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. ...William 17:29, 13 February 2013 (UTC) ...William 17:29, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I realise that US Military articles are inherently PD, but that isn't enough - it needs to be specifically cleared for CC-BY-SA 3.0. It would be much simpler to rewrite the stub, but this isn't my area of expertise. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 17:49, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • If I could find a prior revision that wasn't a copyvio, I would have reverted to it. Unfortunately, every single diff as currently exists is a copy of the article. As I said, if somebody gets to rewrite the stub in their own words before I do, or if somebody can point me to a policy that states I can take US government documentation, modify it, and sell it to others (which is what our CC-BY-SA licence allows), I'll withdraw the speedy claim. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 17:56, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Point taken. Though I believe PD is PD. Take another look. See if I could have done it better. Dlohcierekim 18:07, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That's fine - all sorted now. Copyright is a bit of a minefield, so I apologise if I came across a bit forcefully, but we've just got to be careful with these things. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 18:09, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. No problem. Better safe. Though in all modesty, I think my version is much better anyway. Dlohcierekim 18:13, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Errr. If something is PD, it's "cleared for CC-BY-SA 3.0". You can do any dang thing you want with PD information. If public domain wasn't compatible with Wikipeida licensing, there wouldn't be PD images on Commons. - The Bushranger One ping only 09:30, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:53, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:53, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. J04n(talk page) 11:35, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Leigh Day & Co[edit]

Leigh Day & Co (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)

Overly promotional, substantially the work of a corporate COI editor, presumably paid too, and no indication of either notability within their field, or independent sourcing of such notability. Andy Dingley (talk) 17:15, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. 21:44, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 21:44, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:51, 19 February 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. Yunshui 雲‍水 10:00, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ranknauseo[edit]

Ranknauseo (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 declined a CSD A7, because WP:NOTCSD says neologisms cannot be speedy deleted, so I'm bringing it here as something that looks like it was made up one day and is completely devoid of any hits outside of Wikipedia space, reliable or otherwise. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:47, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:50, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:51, 19 February 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. This deletion is without prejudice to re-creation if sources can be found later. Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:55, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

List of Thailand provinces by Human Development Index[edit]

List of Thailand provinces by Human Development Index (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)

Unreferenced, and I was unable to verify any of the given information. The latest UNDP national reports for Thailand (2007 and 2009) use only the Human Achievement Index (HAI) and make no mention of an HDI-type score. HDI values were given for the 2003 report, but they don't match what is claimed in the article, and its lack of inclusion in later reports suggest that the UNDP has abandoned it as a reliable indicator (and therefore not suitable for basing a Wikipedia list article on). Many other local organisations compile their own development indices, but none of them that I've seen features a similar aggregated score. The inclusion of Pattaya, which is not a province, casts extra doubt on the list's accuracy as is. Paul_012 (talk) 11:57, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 05:42, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Thailand-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 05:42, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 00:09, 6 February 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, — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 16:16, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy keep. Nominator has expressed his interest in withdrawing this, in addition there's no way this will be deleted as of now, looks pretty notable. (non-admin closure) gwickwiretalkedits 19:24, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Karl Shuker[edit]

Karl Shuker (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's subject does not meet WP:ACADEMIC, he's written some books, quite a few, but all are VERY limited distribution, or self-published, few are found in Library of Congress, those from larger publishers, but almost no critique, or review or even news or any mention beyond some online retailers selling copies, of them exist. None of the books meet WP:NBOOK. Subject does not meet WP:GNG as no significant independent coverage of him exists, pretty much only known within the very small sect of "Cryptozoologists." Criteria under WP:AUTHOR is best match for him but criteria #1, I don't see evidence for this, he's not published any academic papers, nothing that I can see cites for or anything like that. I did a little analysis of the WP:N on the article's talk page: Talk:Karl_Shuker#Criticism. Apparently the article's subject has been editing and maintaining this page and hawking over it for years, he made some legal threats at even the mention of putting critical information in the article or deleting it, so was just recently banned. I thought before I go through any trouble reforming the article to be in compliance with WP:NPOV, even if sources could be tracked down to do so, that I'd see if it even merits inclusion first. — raekyt 16:09, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. LlamaAl (talk) 16:41, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. LlamaAl (talk) 16:41, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. J04n(talk page) 11:38, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

List of most watched sporting events in 2004[edit]

List of most watched sporting events in 2004 (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 is a one-off list created in 2005. You could argue that we should rather create similar lists for all other years, rather than deleting this, and if there is concensus for that I have nothing against it. But, as it stands, I question the notability of the list, and think Wikipedia would be better without it (we have similar lists at List of most watched television broadcasts but we could create an article on List of most watched sporting events. What do you think? Coin945 (talk) 15:54, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:48, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:48, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:48, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. J04n(talk page) 11:38, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

List of roundabouts in Pennsylvania[edit]

List of roundabouts in Pennsylvania (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)

Contested PROD. Listcruft. Do not need an exhaustive listing of roundabouts. Dough4872 15:39, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. LlamaAl (talk) 16:41, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. LlamaAl (talk) 16:41, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:46, 19 February 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. While I appreciate the amount of work done on improving the article consensus is to delete. I would be happy to userfy the page if requested so that it can be maintained until more information concerning the breed is available. J04n(talk page) 11:43, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Murray River Curly Coated Retriever[edit]

Murray River Curly Coated Retriever (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 mentioned in any works outside of breeder/kennel websites. Nonnotable variety of the curly-coated retriever. TKK bark ! 00:43, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

User 'Tikuko' obviously has no knowledge regarding the MRCCR, futhermore should be banned from any further edits due to disregard and the users lack of any knowledge what so ever on these dogs. As a proud owner of Austrailas unique breed of Retriever for over 20 years and former chairman of the MRCCR association;[4] Please see http://www.mrccr.org/ and contact the association for futher detail. Recently the MRCCR underwent DNA testing which result in that they are a breed of there own right and not a CCR. There is an application to have this breed registered as a sporting dog, due to it heritage of hunting use which still occurs today. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MRCCR (talk • contribs) 04:52, 27 January 2013 (UTC) — MRCCR (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

I do not consider being interested in a specific topic to be a negative. I do consider people who edit multiple sites or sites that they are not-knowledgeable about are not educated on the subject and should discuss their grievances before editing. merging or putting forward a proposal for deletion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Markable1 (talk • contribs) — Markable1 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. — Note: An editor has expressed a concern that Markable1 (talk • contribs) has been canvassed to this discussion.
Comment - The fact that the entire article is referenced to the Murray River Curly Coated Retriever website is part of the reason I nominated this article. No original research. This is not the place to discuss your grievance with me. --TKK bark ! 05:20, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
As already explained there has been original research by DNA verification, this has shown that the Murray is a distinct breed. Markable1

The argument for deletion is very weak and unsubstantiated. Although I am involved with an unrelated retriever breed I have no affiliation whatsoever with Murrays. This breed is currently fulfilling the requirements to be listed as a separate breed from the CCR, and any research which is current will show this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 101.119.19.251 (talk) 05:12, 27 January 2013 (UTC) Note: An editor has expressed a concern that 101.119.19.251 (talk • contribs) has been canvassed to this discussion. [reply]

Comment - Where did you even come from? Were you told to come here? --TKK bark ! 05:21, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Wow Tikuko, that's a hostile remark. Not everyone has the time or energy to be a general editor, but only come out of the woodwork for things which they passionately care about. (Although I give you points for not raising to the bait after MRCCR's uncalled for attack on you earlier.) I haven't edited Wikipedia for some years now, but I trust that doesn't disqualify me from commenting here. Additional comments will be added below. Limeguin (talk) 04:59, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Apologies, I did not mean to come across as hostile, I was just trying to figure out what was going on. --TKK bark ! 09:49, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have owned Murray River Curly Coated Retrievers for 53 years. They are a separate and distinct breed from Curly Coated Retrievers which I have also owned. They have been a distinct breed in Australia most likely dating pre 1850. We have evidence from newspapers from the 1840s and photographs of similar dogs from the 1850s in Australian online collections. I have researched these dogs for the past 7 years, I started the Yahoo group I wrote the original wiki page which was written well before the Murray River Curly Coated Retriever Association was formed or any DNA testing carried out.

Comment D_mentias, if you have evidence from newspapers from the 1840s, could you put them up somewhere on the Internet where they are visible to others? I don't think it is fair to expect Wikipedia editors to sign up to a Yahoo Group or Facebook in order to see this evidence. On the other hand, I also don't think it is fair for editors to dismiss such evidence without seeing it if they haven't at least made a good-faith attempt to view such evidence. Limeguin (talk) 04:59, 28 January 2013 Printed evedence of the acknowledgement of the Murray can be found in the book The Curly Coated Retriever -Audrey Nicholls 1992, pp. 89-90. Markable1.

Now you try to tell me they are a non notable variant of the CCR(they actually pre-date CCRs) or that I am advertising the breed organization? We don't even have a Murray Breeder listed. The listing for Soft Maple, P. Mathis and CCR were there because of references and sparsity of other sources. CCR Australia does acknowledge the Murray as a separate breed.

I wish to protect and preserve the Murray for all future Australians. The Murray is a very iconic Australian dog and symbol. D_mentias D mentias (talk) 06:55, 27 January 2013 (UTC) p.s users have not been canvassed for this page however the proposed deletion and reasons were shared on the FB and Yahoo groups and the Association notified. MRCCR owners and supporters are very passionate about this true blue little Aussie retriever I would expect more supporters will weigh in on any argument. D_mentiasD mentias (talk) 07:06, 27 January 2013 (UTC) — D mentias (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Comment - users have not been canvassed for this page however the proposed deletion and reasons were shared on the FB and Yahoo groups and the Association notified That is very nearly the definition of canvassing.
Everything you said is nice, but you (and all the other comments) have still failed to address my concerns with the breed. --TKK bark ! 13:34, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Further research into the subject helps nothing. There is a passing mention of the breed here but this is not enough to establish notability. Here it is stated that the "Curly-coated retriever... are used on duck in the swamps and lagoons of the Murray River." It says nothing of a Murray River-specific breed or variety. Here it is yet again referred to as simply a curly-coated retriever - "In Australia they are used in the swamps and lagoons of the Murray River, duck being the chief quarry, and here again they are spoken of by their admirers as being the best workers and stayers of any form of Gun Dog, the steadiest, the most tender mouthed, and quite unsurpassed in water." The first five pages of a google web search for "Murray River Curly Coated Retriever" did not turn up any reliable secondary sources. There are no results on Google Scholar except for the first book I linked and a citation to an article on the Tweed Water Spaniel.

As far as the sources cited in the article itself:

I am still thoroughly convinced that this breed/variety is not notable enough to warrant having its own Wikipedia article. If deletion fails, I propose a merge or redirect to Curly-coated retriever, as all the sources above seem to believe that's what this dog is. --TKK bark ! 17:21, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Grahame (talk) 00:21, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]


Re the links. 1 and 5 are indeed dead. But since the original article was written and referenced in Sept 2008 this is not surprising.No 3 is not the Associations website but a Yahoo group which actually pre-dated the original wiki article. No 4 is current and takes you to the National Library or Australia Trove which is a digitised newspaper database and relates to the earliest sighting of a Murray like Retriever in Australia. 1844. I only added this link yesterday so I know it is not dead. No 2 Mathis article I did not write, his information is incorrect at the MRCCR did not originate on the Murray River in New Zealand but was included originally because of the sparsness of information. In fact the only thing I have ever written was the original wiki page which over the years others have contributed too or altered. The links you purported to find were of poor quality and the illustration even poorer. Th FB and Yahoo groups are closed for a reason, if you leave a group open people come along and spam it not unlike a wiki page only worse. The Yahoo group is not owned by the Association as contributers here attest either are the FB groups. However anyone may apply for membership. The Murray River Curly Coated Retriever Association is also available to owners and supporters should they wish to pay their dues and join. They also publish a newsletter which is available on the FB group.

As to the breed not being notable enough. I note that its probably closest relative the American Water Spaniel has its own breed page on wiki as does its close relative the Boykin spaniel. In Australia other iconic Australian dogs like the Koolie and the Australian Kelpie also have wiki pages. The MRCCR is arguably an older breed than both these dogs. The fact that this iconic Australian retriever's wiki page was proposed for deletion on Australia Day was noted by owners and supporters.

I also repeat that this dog is not a sub species of the CCR. DNA reseach carried out in 2012 demonstrated that the MRCCR is a DNA proven breed not closely related to others. This was published in the Murray Mail no 8 in Dec 2012 which is available on the FB site. The Murray Association hold the fuller report. I imagine CCR owners and breeders would be up in arms if the MRCCR was included in their breed.

In Australia the Murray River Curly Coated Retriever is often referred to as just a Curly Retriever. They are probably more common than CCRs. There has been immense confusion between the MRCCR and the CCR for probably a century. Both CCR and MRCCR people are working hard to distinguish between the breeds and the wiki pages for both the CCR and the MRCCR contribute towards this. Your suggestions that the Murray is a non notable CCR would put us back a century again D mentias (talk) 02:25, 28 January 2013 (UTC) D_mentiasD mentias (talk) 02:25, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The links that I found where the only mentions of the breed I could find that were not directly associated with the retriever's club. Again, that means there is a lack of secondary sources, which means that the dog is not notable. Liking something also doesn't make it notable enough to include. It doesn't matter if every single dog in Australia is a Murray retriever, if there's nothing written about them then it's not notable.
And again, you can DNA-test until the cows come home but unless it's published somewhere reliable it won't make a whit of difference.
The other Australian dog breeds you mentioned have substantial secondary sources available, so the comparison is essentially moot. As far as nominating the article on Australia Day, sorry but I've never even heard of that so I couldn't have possibly done it intentionally.
You act as if I'm conspiring against you but I'm not. I'm acting in what i believe to be the best interest of Wikipedia, and every effort I've made to improve your article to comply with WP:MOS has been reverted (and in violation of the three revert rule to boot)). --TKK bark ! 02:46, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Having several curlies and then having been to Australia to see the MRCCR first hand, I can say with no hesitation it is a different breed. You want proof, and proof is given here. But it's not 'official' enough for 'Tikuko'. User 'Tikuko', find something better to do with you time, like graduating!! This dog is a different breed and you have no proof otherwise. Silent stalker (talk) 04:22, 28 January 2013 (UTC) — Silent Stalker (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Howicus (talk) 06:04, 28 January 2013 (UTC) [reply]

Comment -- Silent stalker, please keep the personal remarks to yourself. The question isn't whether MRCCR is a separate breed, but whether it is a notable breed that requires its own entry in an encylopedia. Based on the lack of sources (books, newspaper or magazine articles, movies staring famous Murrays, etc.) this does not seem to be a notable (famous, well-known) breed, and probably should be included as a subsection under Curly Coated Retrievers or similar. Philip Mathis describes the Murray as a smaller variety of the Curly. Regardless of how wonderful and distinctive the dogs themselves are, and I know a Murray and he is a lovely dog, I think that it is fair to say that outside of the circle of fanciers, the Murray is not yet well-known even among dog fancier circles. No matter how worthy the breed, Wikipedia is not intended for fanciers to promote their well-loved breed. Get Murrays mentioned in books and newspapers, then Wikipedia can follow. Limeguin (talk) 07:11, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Limeguin I would argue that most Australians when thinking of a Curly Coated Retriever actually think or a MRCCR. To them all curlies are small and liver. They are not aware of the taller pedigreed type. The continued confusion between the MRCCR and the CCR does both noble breeds a diservice. They are notable as Australia's only Australian developed retriever. The wiki page in a small way demonstrate the difference. There is also much interest in the MRCCR from Europe and North America, we have members on Yahoo an FB who are closely following their development and one day wish to own one. It is not just an Australian rare breed dog there is genuine international interest...look Silent Stalker seemed pleased to meet one(I don;t know who they are) D mentias (talk) 08:00, 28 January 2013 (UTC) D_mentias[reply]

Howicus, if the 1844 article is a newspaper advertisment, that is evidence that people in 1844 routinely expected others to recognise the name of the breed. That at least is (minor) evidence of notability. Limeguin (talk) 07:16, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Further links have been added. The 1844 links was to prove how long this type of dog had been in Australia. There is photographic evidence of an 1893 MRCCR on wiki that I put up yesterday.The original photo is held by the State Library Victoria, it is used with permission. The dog breeds true to type 120 years later. I could look for further newspaper and journal articles but as you say you are a self proclaimed deletionist. I added the article or blog by Mr Westfall suggesting that the Murray may be related to an earlier and extinct retriever the Norfolk.

I then added the full breed description written by Ms R.Bell in 2012 and added a link to a CCR description which demonstrates that they are indeed separate dogs. It is not only size but the fact that Murrays don't come in black proves this. I also added photographic evidence of the difference in size between the breeds.

The Mathis article does reference Murrays as a smaller different dog. YOu need to read the erticle "This smaller version is a very popular duck dog, found mostly along the Murray River, where it is not surprisingly called the Murray River Curly. The River Curlies are, for the most part, unregistered with The Kennel Club, and many River Curly fans feel it should be considered a separate breed."(http://www.landaracurl.com/Origin.html) Mr Mathis has published more fully on curlies, Australian readers would be wary as he refers to them as NZ. A book review here expresses this concern http://www.amazon.co.uk/review/R2RC8NTGDWMBIK/ref=cm_cr_pr_viewpnt#R2RC8NTGDWMBIK

Now the DNA evidence has been published but it is in a Murray MAil Newsletter that you claim doesn't count. It is available for download on the FB site.It is not as if we are hiding it. You have to nbe a member but that is easy. The DNA testing was organized by the Koolie club of Australia who themselves had trouble getting their breed acknowledged.

The Australian Murray River Curly Coated Retriever is an old and iconic Australian breed pre-dating even the kelpie. It survived for 160+ years without a breed club or recognition by dog authorities. It has bred true to type for at least 120 years going on photographic evidence. The yahoo group started in 2006. The original wiki page was written in 2008. The Murray Association was formed in 2010. DNA testing proving a serparate breed carried out in 2011 and 2012. The wiki page needed cleaning up but in one foul swoop you are trying to remove them from the record entirely...all on our National Day. I tried to simplify the wiki page but you are asking for even higher levels of proof. Today I added more information and photos again clogging the site. At the same time you have not demonstrated any knowledge of this unique Australian retriever and even less of CCRs to which they are not related as suggested by user Silent Stalker. D mentias (talk) 07:12, 28 January 2013 (UTC)D_mentiasD mentias (talk) 07:12, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]


D_mentias, there is no point in digging up more and more evidence that Murrays are a separate breed. That is not being questioned. What is being questioned is whether or not they are a notable (famous, well-known) breed. If not, then they should be included as a subsection of some other related, but more notable, breed. If you believe that Curlies are the wrong breed, then please nominate another one.
Also, please stop bring up Australia Day. For starters, it's Australia Day, not Murray River Curly Coated Retriever Day. (If it were MRCCR Day, that would be excellent proof that it was a notable breed.) Secondly, as an Aussie myself I know that Australia is the centre of the universe, but most poor benighted foreigners don't know or care. This is not a personal attack against Aussies, Australia, mateship, the Anzacs or Murrays. It is a simple question of whether or not the MRCCR breed is notable enough to get its own article in a encyclopedia. Go out and promote the breed. Get dog fancier magazines to talk about it. Get newspaper articles written about Murrays. Get Dog Encyclopedias to list them. Then Murrays will be a notable breed and can graduate from a subsection to a full article on its own. Limeguin (talk) 07:31, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The MRCCR is not related to the CCR. It is a gundog, that is what they have in common they both sit on the gundog spectrum along with other retrievers, spaniles, setters and pointers. Many gundogs of less note have their own page. The Murray is a purebred not unlike a Bull Arab. Neither have pedigrees yet the Bull Arab has its own Wiki page. WE have got magazines to write artcles(shooting Tine Dec 2012) They are listed on easypetmd.com as an Australian dog. There is genuine interest from the wider dog world in the MRCCR. D mentias (talk) 11:41, 28 January 2013 (UTC)D_mentias[reply]

Comment D mentias I cannot find any reference on the Internet to a "Shooting Tine" or "Shooting Time" magazine. Can you provide a link to the magazine, or tell us where it is available? Limeguin (talk) 22:09, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Further comment D mentias, you give easypetmd.com as evidence of notability, but it actually undercuts your argument. Easypetmd clearly states that the "Murray River Curly Coated Retriever" is a New Zealand breed, not Australian, and is a smaller variety of the Curly Coated Retriever. To quote:
   The New Zealand version of the breed, however, is considerably smaller in size than that 
   of the proper English Curley. This new smaller version has become a popular duck dog in 
   New Zealand found manly around the Murray River, where they are known as the Murray River 
   Curly Coated Retriever.

Limeguin (talk) 22:27, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

EasyPetMD isn't really a reliable source, anyways. It's an SEO scraper isn't it? --TKK bark ! 23:39, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
D mentias, please read WP:Other Stuff Exists. The existence of similar articles should not affect the discussion here. Each article must be considered on its own merits. Howicus (talk) 14:59, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No WP:RS, the MRCCR is not presently able to meet the WP:GNG.
  • Additional comment to above - I have spent time today trying to resolve a number of format issues in the article, which has meant I have also attempted to sort out problems with the references. These actions have confirmed to me that sources are to blogspots, facebook, yahoo groups etc - these would normally all be removed from articles. Other references do not support the arguments stated (only referring to CCRet from the area, rather than an individual breed). The fact people are evidently passionate about these dogs does not prove the MRCCR is currently at a stage to justify inclusion as a separate encyclopaedia article. I believe a merge into the Curly-coated Retriever article might be a compromise until further notability can be established. SagaciousPhil - Chat 21:32, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Sagaciousphil for resolving the format errors. My expertise in the MRCCR does not extend to this. All I have ever wanted is for people to distunguish between the MRCCR and other breeds. I believe someone tried to add the MRCCR to the CCR wiki page yesterday which has already been reversed by another wiki contributor. CCR contributors and owners understand that these are separate non-related breeds. Many lesser known Australian and overseas breeds have there own breed page.If I want to learn about a breed of dog the first place I look is wiki. Not all these dogs are registered and pedigreed or recognized outside their own country. We have had a separate inclusion as a wiki article since Sept 2008 yet only this last weekend other contributors proposed the page for deletion. If the MRCCR page is deleted interested people will not be able to learn about them without much trolling through google. — Preceding unsigned comment added by D mentias (talk • contribs) 04:33, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, if this page is deleted, searching for Murray River Curly Coated Retriever would take people directly to the MRCCR website. Howicus (talk) 14:37, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organisms-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:22, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge - I would say to merge it to Curly Coated Retriever. The breed obviously has quite a following, just not many scholarly sources or sources in general. I did find one more source here by searching the National Library of Australia. - cReep talk 07:29, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I would argue against merging as would any CCR person. Limeguin already added the MRCCR to the CCR page. Within 24 hours this was reversed by a user I think called Curlycoat who understands that the MRCCR and CCR are not variants of the same dog. The CCR has a long and traceble pedigree is larger and comes in 2 colours.Merging is unacceptable to CCR breeders.
Comment: with all due respect to both D mentias and Curlycoat, Wikipedia is a general encyclopedia for everyone, and not to be held hostage to the parochial concerns of a tiny minority of breed enthusiasts. CCR breeders are not the only people who determine whether or not merging is acceptable. While breeder's opinions will be given due weight, the deciding factor is 'notability', not DNA analysis. Limeguin (talk) 21:59, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The MRCCR as yet us not recognised by canine authorties(about to be recognized as a sporting breed). It Hx in Australia extends back to the 1840s and was believed to be on the goldfields. There are more pictures on trove including this one[5]. Users of the net do not always know what they are looking for. If they are not sure of a breed they may look up a few types, this is where wiki is usefull. I have learnt of 3-4 similar breeds to the MRCCR from wiki then I followe d the links to learn more. THese days wiki is often the first port of call to people seeking information

D mentias (talk) 11:12, 30 January 2013 (UTC)D_mentiasD mentias (talk) 11:12, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have only just started to look at this site but what strikes me (as a professional research librarian) is the lack of organisation around the arguments. I would suggest that the arguments for and against the MRCCR be articulated and the evidence cited. I own a MRCCR and my friend has a CCR and to me it is obvious that they are separate breeds. However, as a researcher I believe the best way to sort this out is not by slanging at each other but allowing each member to have their turn to present the evidence. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 101.170.127.243 (talk) 06:19, 31 January 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, -- Patchy1 REF THIS BLP 13:38, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J04n(talk page) 12:18, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Spent 15 more hours of researching, and now working through article. Adding more reference cites. Ending now. Will resume Monday, February 18.--Thor Dockweiler (talk) 07:26, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Spent another 15 hours background work, and did further editing and reference cites. Will continue tomorrow as now tired.--Thor Dockweiler (talk) 07:42, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Notation: Separately, and without requiring consensus, this article is keepable per WP:SPECIESOUTCOMES as this is related to Canis lupus familiaris, itself inherently notable, as they are "all subspecies of the gray wolf" (which is also inherently notable). See WP article Dog breed:
  • Intro section which states in part: "Dog breeds are groups of closely related and visibly similar domestic dogs, which are all of the subspecies Canis lupus familiaris, having characteristic traits that are selected and maintained by humans..." "The term dog breed is also used to refer to natural breeds or landraces, which arose through time in response to a particular environment that included humans..."
The historical citations and photos, both over a century ago, and in present time show this.
This grouping has historically been noted as per the citations and photos, both over a century ago, and in modern times. MRCCR is a grouping recognized now by a breed club which established itself in 2010, if not before (2006). This alone gives it notability status.
  • Classification section which states in part: "In biology, subspecies, race and breed are equivalent terms. Breed is usually applied to domestic animals; species and subspecies, to wild animals and to plants; and race, to humans. Colloquial use of the term dog breed, however, does not conform to scientific standards of taxonomic classification. Breeds do not meet the criteria for subspecies since they are all considered a subspecies of the gray wolf..."
Being a subspecie of the gray wolf, it is therefore notable, as are other dog groupings.
  • Notation: Separately, from above, sufficient editing and referencing work has now been done that the article is keepable at this point. Continued work by others, or myself, can continue to improve the article.
  • Notation: Collectively, or in any part combination thereof, this article is keepable for some or all of the aforementioned items.--Thor Dockweiler (talk) 07:42, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, here is WP:SPECIESOUTCOMES in its entirety. "All species that have a correct name (botany) or valid name (zoology) are inherently notable. Their names and at least a brief description must have been published in a reliable academic publication to be recognized as correct or valid. Because of this, they generally survive AfD." Note that this only confers notability for species, not dog breeds or other sub-groupings. The MCCR does not have a valid name. Also, the quote you gave states that "Breeds do not meet the criteria for subspecies", so you can't argue that this breed is "notable as a subspecies". I'm not trying to invalidate the work you've done on this. I'm just saying that your arguments for keeping without consensus are invalid. Howicus (talk) 14:06, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Unfortunately, this would then require that all dog, and probably cat, articles would have to be deleted in Wikipedia. That seems illogical.--Thor Dockweiler (talk) 20:28, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, because most of these other breeds have been extensively written about in third party sources, so they meet WP:GNG. Take a look at, say, the Border collie article. --TKK bark ! 22:44, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disagree; WP:GNG met. Another 12 hours. Have now come across hundreds of general and major newspapers with articles. The term to generally use is brown curly coated retrievers. The article name could be changed to this but I think the existing MRCCR should be used in its current context. I have placed numerous references in the article's beginning. I could literally bombard with more. It is all over the place over the decades of a century. WP:GNG has now been met as all these references are in major Australian and New Zealand newspapers. I would not expect U.S. editors, like myself or those objecting, to set the standard on this Australian dog icon. The baseless arguments statement is rather stupid. The baseless view seems to now have been contradicted by the public newspaper articles. I am even more surprised now after all the personal editing effort and am personally satisfied that the article should be kept based upon the uncovered evidence. I came across this article because it was next in a log concerning a physics article that I was working on. I am not surprised the early commenters have not continued on. You collectively seem rather a hostile group which could have otherwise improved the article or assisted instead. Having read through them now, I am quite suspicious that proposing the article's deletion, on Australia Day no less!, was not intentional. The world is a much bigger place than U.S. only views and prejudice. I can understand the article supporters since they put in a great deal of input time, but I am somewhat appalled at the other side. Confirmed deletionist? What kind of attitude is that. That alone shows bias and non-objectivity. Will continue with further editing tomorrow. Ending with a middle ground supporting good editing viewpoint instead; Q.E.D.--Thor Dockweiler (talk) 08:26, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. This discussion isn't going anywhere and reading the arguments for and against I see that no consensus has been reached nor do I see one forming. J04n(talk page) 11:50, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

List of deceased American comic book characters[edit]

List of deceased American comic book characters (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)

Delete. This topic is not useful. Accuracy is not possible because death is inconsistent in comic books, for reasons that include resurrections, reboots, retcons, alternate universes, alternate timelines, hoaxes, dreams, imaginary stories, cliffhangers, editorial edicts, and outright errors. For example, characters that died before DC Comics did their New 52 reboot are still dead in the pre-New 52 version of reality but are not dead in the one getting currently published in most common books. A few stories since that reboot, however, are apparently set in the pre-New 52 reality. Arnold Wesker is still dead in several versions of reality but not in New 52. I could go on and on with examples that probably won't mean much to most of you. We're not supposed to focus on "now" when writing about fiction anyway. We cannot list every character that ever died because all DC Comics and Marvel Comics characters have died before. We have already discussed this on the WikiProject Comics talk page[5]. Those of us who talked about this all agreed the page needs to be deleted. Nobody has objected to this plan. Doczilla STOMP! 07:18, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Barry, Kara, and Superman all came back to life, though. The article Comic book death can cover those notable deaths. The Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of dead comic book characters discussion took place before DC's Blackest Night, Marvel's Chaos War, and then DC's New 52 reboot made comic book death more nebulous than ever before. Doczilla STOMP! 19:02, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
And per WP:SS, those (Barry, Kara, etc.) should be able to be spun off into a separate list page in the future, if wanted/needed. But at that point, some ruleslawyer will try to suggest that such a list could not exist per this afd. There should be no prejudice against such a list.
Also, it doesn't matter if the character eventually someday was brought back to life (not uncommon in fiction, especially in the sci-fi, fantasy, and horror genres), what is being discussed is the death of the character.
Otherwise, I entirely agree with what you just said : ) - jc37 19:21, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There might well be a case for a list of notable comic book deaths, spun out from the comic book death article, but that's not what this list is. This is a list of every character who is "currently" dead. It's a completely different thing. DoctorKubla (talk) 22:05, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That's because the sheer volume of publication deaths, and their reversals, is highly notable in comics through aggregation. King Zeal 23:04, 28 January 2013 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.253.124.35 (talk)
Is there any indication that what you stated is actually a problem? One-panel deaths, fake-outs, and ambiguities are left off the article, and when, added, are promptly removed. King Zeal 23:04, 28 January 2013 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.253.124.35 (talk)
inclusion criteria (and removal from publication with death being the cited as the cause appear a good criterium) the sustainability concerns appear fixable. Cavarrone (talk) 22:23, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comic book characters do not get removed from publication upon death. Appearances can become less frequent, but not necessarily. Some actually show up more often after death (e.g., Anton Arcane) and not just in flashbacks or stories set before they died. That criterion does not work. Dead is not dead in comic books.
Besides, a fictional character is neither alive nor dead anyway. It never lived. We can only call it dead or alive from an in-universe perspective. We're supposed to write about fiction in present tense anyway. Each fictional character is both dead and alive because the stories where it lives exist just as much as the stories where it's dead. Other articles on "current" status of fictional characters get deleted, articles that don't have such nebulous topics where a character's current status can be alive in several versions of the story history but dead in numerous others. Doczilla STOMP! 00:32, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That violates the spirit of "death" as meant by the article. "Death" in comics is a catch-all term that simply means "removal from publication in current status quo". It's not "death" in the sense of other media, but that's exactly what makes it so significant. Death is overused in comics to the point that the number of characters that have been through it disqualify it from any sort of meaning. However, it is nigh-impossible for NON-comics fans to keep track of who has died, is dead, and various. For example, if someone hasn't read an issue of Superman in more than 20 years, they will have no idea that Maxima, Jean Grey, or Nova are currently out of publication; two o them having been so for close to or over a decade. This list is an easy fix to that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by King Zeal (talk • contribs)
I don't understand. What do Jean Grey and Nova (comics) have to do with Superman? Superman is a DC comic. Jean Grey and Nova (whichever Nova you are referring to) are Marvel comics characters. They wouldn't normally appear in the same comic book with Superman anyway. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:08, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 15:56, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 15:56, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 15:56, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep Not so much so as to whether it can be maintained, but whether you bother to try and maintain it. It is a useful list; if a character is "dead" in some versions but "alive" in some others, then just add a simple hat note as to which version he's "alive" or "dead" in. Bonkers The Clown (Nonsensical Babble) 13:42, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think it's fair to count dead film characters here (considering the Marvel Cinematic Universe has absolutely no relation to the actual comic series it is only inspired upon.) Bonkers The Clown (Nonsensical Babble) 09:27, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It was more the first analogy that popped into my mind. In any event, the fictional character Norman Osborn is neither dead and not dead, for he is a fictional character. WesleyDodds (talk) 09:44, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The main reason cited in the closing statement of that discussion does not apply here. - The Bushranger One ping only 10:24, 6 February 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, -- Patchy1 REF THIS BLP 13:42, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
List of American comic book characters who have died would be the exact equivalent of List of American comic book characters. All of them have died at some point. DoctorKubla (talk) 08:36, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Please justify your "all', which I believe is a generalization. Take for example, the Watchers. Have they died? Same goes for Zatanna, Luke Cage, etc. Bonkers The Clown (Nonsensical Babble) 11:57, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, they have all died and come back to life several times. For example, in Marvel Comics, the entire world has been destroyed and then restored several times, sometimes fixed through time travel. Eternity once destroyed the planet Earth and, instead of restoring it, created a duplicate Earth to replace it, leaving only Doctor Strange knowing that everybody around him was a copy. Between that and Marvel's "The Other" story, Peter Parker was already a copy of a copy even before his most recent death while mind-swapped with Dr. Octopus. Every single Marvel and DC character has died on other occasions as well. They die individually, they die in massacres, and they keep coming back. Except for a few who just haven't been around long and probably aren't notable yet, you can't name a Marvel or DC character who has never died. You just can't. Thanos killed half the universe with the Infinity Gauntlet, and soon he killed the remaining half of Earth's heroes. Korvac killed the Avengers and the Guardians of the Galaxy, then sacrificed himself resurrecting them. Cary Bates killed the Justice Society, then the Spectre brought them back to life. The Justice League died in the JLA "Obsidian Age" storyline. The examples can go on and on.
To address one of the specific examples in (Nonsensical Babble)'s question: Zatanna dies in Flashpoint, then get resurrected by the creation of the New 52. Doczilla STOMP! 22:48, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps a soft-redirect is in order! --Odie5533 (talk) 11:21, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It's clear that Wikipedia as a whole is providing the desired context for these characters, so a list of significant characters that are examples of the notable topic is compliant with WP:LISTPURP, WP:notability, and every kind of content that WP:NOT allows us to keep. I may agree to establish a more detailed inclusion criterion, but AfD is not cleanup - an slightly fuzzy criterion is no reason to delete the whole thing. Diego (talk) 22:30, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This list is not a logical extension of comic book death. If it was – if the article was called "List of notable comic book deaths" – I'd probably argue for it to be kept. But what we're discussing is a list of currently dead comic book characters. The notability of such a list is not established, and making the inclusion criteria stricter wouldn't help, because the basic problem is that the inclusion criteria doesn't make sense. Characters in a work of fiction cannot be "currently" dead. DoctorKubla (talk) 08:31, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J04n(talk page) 11:58, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. The prevalent opinion, as I am reading it, is that these pages should not continue as they are presently written. Discussions should be initiated on the respective talkpages as to repurposing or spliting them from their current forms. J04n(talk page) 14:09, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

List of Congregational churches[edit]

List of Congregational churches (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
List of Anglican churches (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
(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)

This article can never be what the title promises, because we are never going to accumulate a comprehensive list of all Congregationalist churches, even by state. It's really the agglomeration of US NRHP-listed church buildings along with British buildings similarly listed under their system. Categorization deals with this better; only think of how big List of Roman Catholic churches would be. The creator justified this as "useful" but that suggests that he can have this userfied if he really wants it for his own use. Mangoe (talk) 17:19, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Further note: I've added List of Anglican churches because this is even worse, as bad as the RC list for all practical purposes. There are thousands of Episcopal parishes in the US, South America, and Europe; The Church of England only knows how many there are in its domain, and Africa is likewise well-populated with churches. There isn't a snowball's chance in hell of maintaining an accurate list of such parishes; parishes close constantly, and in Africa at least new parishes open constantly. We cannot maintain a worldwide directory of parishes, and at least of the US parishes probably no more than a quarter of them could support an article (due to NRHP listing of their buildings). Again, of the creator would like a copy in his userspace for his own purposes, that would be fine. But this article has no hope of recording what is promised, and if people are looking for directories of Anglican parishes, they should consult the various dioceses, not us. Mangoe (talk) 17:31, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • As of the end of 2011, there were 6,736 parishes in the Episcopal Church [6]. I don't intend to list every single one here, and neither do you. Probably less than a quarter of them will ever have article because most parish buildings were built in the 1950s and '60s, and a lot of the older ones have been modified too much to allow for NRHP listing. Add England to this, and the scope of the problem shoots off the scale. The folks at 815 barely keep track of all parishes, and that mostly because the statistical office is obsessive. Mangoe (talk) 11:27, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Every Wikipedia-notable one can eventually be listed. I fully intend to expand the list of U.S. ones to include every one documented to be notable by their being NRHP-listed (but have been delayed by confrontations now in arbitration). Likely eventual length of list is not a reason to delete it. The list will be split into List of Congregational churches in the United States and other sublists, as other church list-articles were split, and the top-level list will still be needed. --doncram 12:10, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well, that's my observation here: this looks more like a worklist for you than anything practical. Mangoe (talk) 13:12, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Umm, categories and lists are complementary: see wp:CLT for explanation. For one thing, the list can include redlinks of churches known to be notable (e.g. by their being NRHP-listed).
As was already done for various other denominations' list-articles, this list will obviously be split into List of Congregational churches in the United States and other geographic area sublists. The top-level lists, here "List of Congregational churches", are still needed. There's no reason suggested in any of the above discussion that is supportive of eliminating the top-level list. --doncram 12:06, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I am talking about Anglican churches here, i.e. Church of England. The trouble is that in England there are a huge number of Anglican churches or chapels that are listed. If the list was restricted to Anglican churches in the United States listed on the NRHP that would seem reasonable. But it would seem reasonable to exclude England. The category and sub-categories are already complicated enough, e.g. Category:Church of England churches, which is organized partially by county and partially by period. Mathsci (talk) 14:49, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Mathsci, you seem to have views and some knowledge about how the U.K. congregational Anglican (corrected) churches should be treated in this list-article or possibly in a split-out one that would be linked from this article. This seems not to be AFD-relevant. Could you comment at Talk:List of Congregational churches#U.K. section please, instead? --doncram 15:31, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I already said in the post above (two weeks ago) that I was talking about List of Anglican churches. Mathsci (talk) 22:59, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, right, sorry. I am copying your comments instead to Talk:List of Anglican churches#U.K. section. Do let's please continue there, instead of here. --doncram 23:44, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
My comments were specific to this deletion discussion and the general scope of lists. Mathsci (talk) 23:51, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • My concern is over the assumption that accurate lists, of manageable size, which people intend to maintain, can and will be created. I think all four of these points are in question. As far as the Anglican case is concerned, we can only maintain accurate lists by copying the diocesan lists and monitoring the latter to catch all the changes that occur, not to mention scraping up data elsewhere about parishes that are now closed. Whether such lists can be obtained for all dioceses is quite dubious. And the Anglicans are one of the better cases because ECUSA at least is compulsive about good records-keeping. I do not think we can or will maintain an accurate directory of Anglican parishes worldwide, and that's what we're promising to do here. And I don't think that appeals to eventualism are meaningful, because I don't think that eventually a comprehensive and accurate list will be completed. Mangoe (talk) 14:23, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Non-conformist churches are, by definition, fractious rather than uniform. An exhaustive and perfect directory of the sort you envisage is therefore impossible. This is unimportant because it is our policy that Wikipedia is not a directory and our disclaimers make it clear that we do not pretend to perfection or 100% reliability. This is why we are able to have lists of other items for which there is a long tail of uncertain size such as list of numbers, list of rivers, list of minor planets, &c. We implicitly concentrate upon the more notable examples and don't worry much about lesser ones. Warden (talk) 16:29, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
In essence, this is an indiscriminate list, in that it is not based on a clear religious categorization of local churches, but is largely a list of historic church buildings with "congregational" in the names listed in historic registers.  ::Congregationalism is not a well-defined religious group. Congregationalism has taken diverse forms theologically, with the result that not all churches that define themselves as "congregational" are affiliated with the same religious tradition (or even similar traditions). For example, several decades ago in the United States, the majority of Congregational churches affiliated with the United Church of Christ, so they are no longer considered to be Congregational churches. While the UCC is a very liberal mainstream Protestant denomination, some conservative churches in the U.S. still call themselves "congregational". The article Congregational churches lists two other denominational groups (besides the UCC) active in the U.S.: "the National Association of Congregational Christian Churches; and the Conservative Congregational Christian Conference, an evangelical group". According to that same article, most Congregational churches in Canada affiliated with the United Church of Canada in the 1920s, but some churches rejected that denomination as too liberal and split off to become Congregational Christian Churches in Canada, described as "an evangelical, Protestant, Christian denomination". Because of this diversity, the population of "Congregational churches" potentially included in this list lacks the denominational unity expected of a list of (for example) Roman Catholic churches.
Furthermore, it appears that the scope of the list, as it currently exists, is largely defined as churches that include "congregational" in their names, which is not a particularly meaningful definition. I stated on the article talk page that it wasn't obvious to me what the scope of this list was supposed to be and asked "Am I correct in inferring that it includes any church that once used or currently uses 'congregational' in its name, regardless of theology, but does not include other churches that belong to Congregationalist denominations, but do not have the word 'congregational' in the article name?" The list creator's reply indicated to me that he didn't know much about Congregationalism ("Since the organized Congregational church merged into the United Church of Christ, there may be no current Congregational churches--I am not sure--or there may continue to exist some current Congregational churches somewhere"). He also said "The scope of the list as intended by me is to list all notable current and former Congregational churches" and acknowledged that was started as a list of churches with "congregational" in their names ("Obviously, in the U.S., churches listed on the National Register of Historic Places and having 'Congregational' in their name are likely to be Congregational churches, and I have been proceeding to list those first. It may turn out that a few of these were not in fact Congregational and a correction will have to be made. This is no big deal to make small corrections, it is part of the list-building and categorizing process.").
Human knowledge is not enhanced by the publication of a list of churches of diverse denominations that have "Congregational" in their names, particularly when the list may include churches of diverse religious affiliations and does not include other churches that were at one time Congregational but do not have that word in their names. Delete the article. --Orlady (talk) 03:53, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Repurpose List of Anglican churches as several articles. In principle, the scope of this article ought to be better defined than for the Congregational list, but the attempt to list all Anglican churches in the world on one page -- and the inclusion of many list entries for which the list provides no solid information (such as the 34 entries for churches named "Christ Episcopal Church") -- has created a meaningless hodgepodge. Some of the country-specific lists may be worth retaining, so I'm suggesting that the page be converted into multiple pages, each one clearly defined by geography and specific "Anglican" affiliation. I mention affiliation because the various split-off groups of continuing Anglicanism are still "Anglican" but are distinctly separate from mainstream Anglicanism. I suggest that the new individual lists be built in user space until they have meaningful content. --Orlady (talk) 03:53, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Further comment. Both of these denominational groups are associated with characteristic (and contrasting) approaches to the design and decoration of church buildings. (See, for example, this leaflet.) Their denomination-specific approaches to ecclesiastical architecture are potentially interesting and important topics for encyclopedia articles (and do not appear to be covered in existing articles such as Church architecture and Sacred architecture). Articles about denominational architectural style could and should discuss illustrative examples of individual churches, and might include embedded lists of churches. Indiscriminate lists of individual churches are not, however, a meaningful contribution to the topic of ecclesiastical architecture. --Orlady (talk) 17:21, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
What the heck does that mean, "repurpose"? This is an AFD discussion. There is no argument here for deletion of the topic, which is obviously valid. --doncram 14:31, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: As Mjroots notes, there are some impressive lists of UK lists of places of worship in wikipedia. A similar approach might be interesting for some parts of the United States, but there also could be merit in "by denomination" articles or lists. I think that the religious diversity of the United States creates some denomination-specific patterns that also form potential article topics. I just don't see that these lists have that kind of merit. --Orlady (talk) 17:21, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
These comments have nothing to do with the topic of the AFD, whether the world-wide main list is a valid topic. Obviously the world-level list needs to exist. Splits by geography obviously also will be needed, but discussion should be at the Talk page of the article, and such comments are not AFD-relevant. --doncram 14:31, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:36, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:36, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Peterkingiron, you seem to have views and some knowledge about how the U.K. Congregational/United Reformed churches should be treated in this list-article or possibly in a split-out one that would be linked from this article. The 7 U.K. ones currently listed in the article are all those in a category of U.K. congregational churches. Could you comment at Talk:List of Congregational churches#U.K. section please, instead? --doncram 15:31, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - It appears to me that there are similar issues for the United Kingdom, Canada, and the United States. In all three of these countries, Congregationalism has been an important religious tradition historically (tracing to the English Puritans), but the majority of what were once Congregational churches have joined with other denominations to form a new "United" denomination that is not strictly Congregational. Specifically, these are the United Reformed Church in the UK, the United Church of Canada, and the United Church of Christ in the US. In all of these countries, some Congregational congregations did not join the "United" denomination and are now affiliated with the Congregational Federation (in the UK), Congregational Christian Churches in Canada, National Association of Congregational Christian Churches (in the US), or Conservative Congregational Christian Conference (in the US). Also, some new churches have joined these last four denominations (which I have collected called "Congregational Christian", a term that may be inaccurate) since the United churches were created. In the US, and apparently (based on this list) also in the UK, many former Congregational churches have retained the word "Congregational" in their names after joining the new "United" denomination. A problem with this list is that it lumps all of these different churches together in a single category, ignoring the fact that most of the individual churches are no longer Congregational. This is wrong -- or, at best, misleading. (The list also is very incomplete, in that it omits many current or former Congregational churches that have articles, but that's not the subject of this comment.) There might be merit in creating lists of churches by denominational affiliation, but such lists should be carefully researched and documented to avoid offending the sensibilities of living people who belong to these churches by misrepresenting their religious affiliation. There might also be merit in listing church buildings that were built as Congregational churches (regardless of the current use of the building), for reasons that I outlined above, but such a list should not be misrepresented as a list of churches by denomination. --Orlady (talk) 21:00, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That's not a reason to delete Again, it is obvious that there have been a number of Congregational churches notable for being Congregational and for their building's architecture or for characteristics of their congregations or their ministers or whatever. These can and should be listed. The list-topic is valid. So what if there should also be a list of United Reform ones, etc. Yes it is not yet a comprehensive list. None of these are reasons to delete the topic, which is obviously valid. This is tiresome. --doncram 22:51, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J04n(talk page) 11:08, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. J04n(talk page) 11:51, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Gaisano Capital Ozamiz[edit]

Gaisano Capital Ozamiz (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)

Delete, shopping mall that ultimately fails GNG, no sources provided, I also strongly suspect this is a Sockpuppet account of User:Jeb2003 Hell In A Bucket (talk) 10:38, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. LlamaAl (talk) 16:44, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:41, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Shopping malls-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:41, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. J04n(talk page) 11:52, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Zepetto[edit]

Zepetto (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)

Company fails WP:ORG, many sources for its games but none for Zepetto itself. The intro is WP:CV of zepetto.com Dewritech (talk) 10:22, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) Thibbs (talk) 15:57, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:39, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:39, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Secret account 19:18, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

CAMAH flag[edit]

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

(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)

It is a flag of an organizational with dubious importance. The article about the origination was deleted twice: 1, 2 already. I nominated it for speedy deletion, however, the tag was removed by DGG[7]. If the article of the origination is deleted, its flag and the article about its leader (Piruz Dilanchi) should also be deleted. Tanhatanha (talk) 07:54, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:36, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. J04n(talk page) 14:55, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Saya Translation[edit]

Saya Translation (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 previously put a WP:PROD on this article with the rationale "No evidence that this company meets the notability guidelines.". The notice was removed without comment (along with the maintenance tags) without comment by the article creator. The concerns remain, so I am bringing this to AfD on the same rationale as the earlier Prod. AllyD (talk) 07:57, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Middle East-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:32, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:32, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. J04n(talk page) 11:53, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nilai Sarda[edit]

Nilai Sarda (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)

Reason Chimpfunkz (talk) 07:41, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is an article about someone of little to no importance, and appears to be written mostly by a single author. In addition, the articles this page links to do nothing more than restate results of public contests (and therefore are not the best evidence under the rules of best source/best evidence.) In fact, it seems to be an article that is strongly biased towards the subject in question. Furthermore, the person seems to have done nothing more than placed in a jeopardy tournament, and a previous national geographic spelling bee, which hardly warrants a biographical page. Past contestants in similar contests (including cross-winners) do not have page for themselves because their accomplishments do not warrant a page. For these reasons, I propose deleting this page.

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. LlamaAl (talk) 16:45, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Secret account 19:22, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Jaimin Bal[edit]

Jaimin Bal (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 filmmaker with an article that is "sourced" only to his own personal page; promotional intent by COI editor (who appears to be the subject of the article) is clear. None of his listed film projects have been released (WP:CRYSTAL); notability is not inherited from being assistant director under bluelinked directors. gHits appear to be only social media and Wikimirrors; zero gNews hits; no relevant gBooks hits. WP:TOOSOON at best. The Bushranger One ping only 07:22, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Also, since the article doesn't have an AfD template, I missed this discussion at first and thus corrected the title of the article. The article is now listed under the title Jaimin Bal. --Stefan2 (talk) 10:26, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
An IP has been repeatedly removing the AfD template. The article may need to be semiprotected. - The Bushranger One ping only 10:49, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I've restored the AfD template and semi-protected the article, will continue to monitor. GiantSnowman 11:00, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. LlamaAl (talk) 16:46, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. LlamaAl (talk) 16:46, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 19:41, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

To the Patriots[edit]

To the Patriots (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 pamphlet by the prolific Prabhat Ranjan Sarkar (aka Shrii Shrii Anandamurti). Included in the collections PROUT in a Nutshell that was at AfD recently (decision: redirect to Sarkar bio). Single citation of the book comes from another self-published book by a different author. No discussion in the scholarly or popular press. Recommend redirect to Sarkar bio. GaramondLethe 07:15, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:29, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:30, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:30, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. J04n(talk page) 11:54, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Rumpus (band)[edit]

Rumpus (band) (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)

Unreferenced for 7 years(!) - fails WP:MUSIC. --Bongwarrior (talk) 06:48, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. LlamaAl (talk) 16:47, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. LlamaAl (talk) 16:47, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. J04n(talk page) 15:00, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Gunnies[edit]

Gunnies (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 found no coverage for what appears to just be a definition of an uncommon word. SL93 (talk) 05:34, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Revised: Strong keep: I've been working on building out the article on stoping (mining), and realized what exactly this article is. It's as it says: a type of near-vertical stoping, that often hits the surface. Its a form of underground mining that happens to break out into the surface, not a type of surface/open-pit mining. It's a specialized topic, yes, but from all I can tell, it is a very distinct topic.Morgan Riley (talk) 05:54, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. J04n(talk page) 11:54, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

PoBros, Inc. Video Games Company[edit]

PoBros, Inc. Video Games Company (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 and advertise-y article apparently created by one of the company founders. I can't see this article meeting the notability threshold. I don't immediately see any Google search results other than download sites, press releases, and social media sites; nothing to support notability (other than the two existing external links, which are about two of their games, rather than about the company itself). — Huntster (t @ c) 05:25, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) Thibbs (talk) 14:31, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:26, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Ejection fraction. Mark Arsten (talk) 19:42, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Injection fraction[edit]

Injection fraction (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 about a medical topic appears to be original research. A Google search for "Injection fraction" leads to many misspellings and one PubMed reference to a journal article from 2003 which has no abstract. I checked with Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine#Injection fraction and it appeared that the article was not part of mainstream medicine. Bad medical information can be dangerous. SchreiberBike (talk) 05:06, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry but what do you mean with "redirect to Ejection fraction"? Have you read the article? There is nothing to redirected. If a student spells badly a medical term he must be corrected.DocElisa ✉ 14:36, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
From WP:R, one of the reasons for creating a redirect is "likely misspelling". I believe that this misspelling occurs often enough that it is worth having a redirect page. If the page is simply deleted and a reader searches for "injection fraction" they will only discover that there is no such page in Wikipedia. By adding a redirect, the reader is automatically sent to the article that they were probably looking for. Axl ¤ [Talk] 15:33, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I understand WP:R but the problem is: if the page stays as a redirect someone can again re-edit a false article. And we will have problems forever... we already have anyway. There are lots of errors and misspellings on web. More one reason to be careful with this situations. We can't forget the fact that the other WP are translating en:WP. Regards DocElisa ✉ 19:13, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
if the page stays as a redirect someone can again re-edit a false article - That can happen also if the page is deleted. Diego (talk) 07:02, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:25, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy delete - A7 by Dlohcierekim (non-admin close). Stalwart111 05:21, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Caleb Grasse[edit]

Caleb Grasse (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 appears to have been created for recreation and has no reference, no content, and is a stub as well... Ajayupai95 (talk) 05:06, 13 February 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 Rename. to Detroj-Rampura The Bushranger One ping only 09:12, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Detroj (tehsil)[edit]

Detroj (tehsil) (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)

Duplicate of Detroj Kondi (talk) 11:18, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 18:42, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I concur with User:FunnyPika. Title 'Detroj' should be used for the article on Detroj (village) and Detroj (tehsil) should be moved to Detroj-Rampura. --Kondi (talk) 14:39, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 00:16, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 00:14, 6 February 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, TBrandley (what's up) 05:00, 13 February 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. j⚛e deckertalk 19:01, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel Donnelly (journalist)[edit]

Daniel Donnelly (journalist) (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 his budding career as a reporter (he graduated college not too long ago, it would appear) or his Gaelic Football career seem to have garnered sufficient independent RS coverage to meet our notability requirements, from what I can find. Tagged for notability and as an orphan since 2011. Created by an SPA. Epeefleche (talk) 07:08, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:43, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:43, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:43, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. 04:46, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
Relist just proves a uniamous delete, I see little value in the Relist. LibStar (talk) 13:03, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Good question, Andrew. The answer is scattered. But you can find the discussion: a) on the page of the original re-lister (at the time when there were two !votes and the nom, here, b) at the AN/I filed concerning the fact that there was a re-list, here , which was followed by c) the original re-lister's decistion to revert his relisting, and d) in the edit summary of the second re-lister, here.--Epeefleche (talk) 15:34, 13 February 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. Consensus to delete following relisting. The Bushranger One ping only 09:11, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Federer–Hewitt rivalry[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Federer–Hewitt rivalry (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 was already deleted by consensus at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Federer–Hewitt rivalry and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Federer–Hewitt rivalry (2nd nomination). Per WP:NSPORTS "Sports rivalries are not inherently notable." Tennis guidelines say the same. These endless rivalry pages are getting a bit much. Fyunck(click) (talk) 07:27, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 07:54, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support deletion. A rivalry article needs to show evidence of a rivalry existing beyond "they've played a lot" --Super Nintendo Chalmers (talk) 08:41, 8 February 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, TBrandley (what's up) 04:44, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. J04n(talk page) 16:10, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WTA Big Three[edit]

WTA Big Three (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, and too soon. Per WP:NSPORTS "Sports rivalries are not inherently notable." Tennis guidelines say the same. Maybe in a year or two this might mean something but these endless rivalry pages are getting a bit much. The Trivalry page was already deleted for the same thing, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Trivalry. Tennis is a sport that inherently has players near the same ranking playing each other on a regular basis. Fyunck(click) (talk) 07:36, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 08:00, 6 February 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, TBrandley (what's up) 04:43, 13 February 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. Putting this out of its misery after four relistings. The Bushranger One ping only 09:10, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Humanist Fellowship of Montreal[edit]

Humanist Fellowship of Montreal (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)

Tagged for notability for 5 years; couldn't establish notability Boleyn (talk) 10:53, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 14:06, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Quebec-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 14:06, 17 January 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 02:28, 23 January 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, AutomaticStrikeout (T • C) 00:14, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mediran (t • c) 10:47, 6 February 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, TBrandley (what's up) 04:40, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Secret account 19:12, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Shackles[edit]

Shackles (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)

Norwegian pop duo, deleted by consensus from the Norwegian edition due to lack of notability. Contender at the national Melodi Grand Prix, but didn't make it to the final round. No published albums. The text is written like an ad. Asav | Talk 22:24, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. LlamaAl (talk) 02:28, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:42, 11 February 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, TBrandley (what's up) 04:28, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Secret account 19:09, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Lauri J Owen[edit]

Lauri J Owen (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)

She exists, but I can't find significant RS coverage of her such as would suggest that she is notable. Others are welcome to try. Created by an SPA. Tagged for notability and paucity of refs for two years. Epeefleche (talk) 03:35, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. LlamaAl (talk) 16:49, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedy keep per consensus. Non-admin closure. §FreeRangeFrogcroak 05:22, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Eagle Point, Victoria[edit]

Eagle Point, Victoria (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)

Lacks sources of demographics and tourism, also causes information to be inaccurate because there are no citations. Eyesnore (pending changes) 03:19, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Why was this nominated for deletion less than three hours after its creation? [9] --Oakshade (talk) 04:22, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 04:10, 13 February 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. As Mark viking suggests, there should be "no prejudice to re-creation if more reliable sources become available". -- Ed (Edgar181) 13:39, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

GVK Biosciences[edit]

GVK Biosciences (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)

minimal information on company except from press releases and the occasional FDA filing. WP page is second hit in google search. UseTheCommandLine (talk) 13:04, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 07:52, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 07:53, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 07:53, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The usual recycled press releases. My vote is unchanged. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:00, 7 February 2013 (UTC).[reply]
press releases. a couple of offhand mentions of mergers or contracts, but nothing that is specifically about the company itself to establish notability. -- UseTheCommandLine (talk) 01:12, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 00:12, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Short article on Endo deal at BioPharm International site
  2. Article on problems with regulators in the GVK-Wyeth partnership LiveMint was in association with the WSJ here, so probably reliable
BioPharm International articles, as opposed to press releases, are usually reliable and the LiveMint ref was not complimentary, so is likely independent and reliable. The LiveMint article was in depth, but the BioPharm article is a bit short to be considered in-depth for GVK. At this point, I only see one reliable source, not quite enough for general notability WP:GNG and short of that needed for corporation guidelines WP:CORPDEPTH. Unless more sources are found, the evidence suggests delete, with no prejudice to re-creation if more reliable sources become available. --Mark viking (talk) 04:32, 13 February 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) LlamaAl (talk) 00:03, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Rain On The Just[edit]

Rain On The Just (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 play, can't find sources to verify its existence, there is also a novel by same name which is unrelated to the play, also non notable. Eduemoni↑talk↓ 01:31, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • The play was also broadcast on radio in Australia in 1951, as well as having another run in Brisbane in 1953. If you look around enough, you kind find quite a few performances in British provincial theatres in the late 1940s and the 1950s—Bath, Sheffield, Nottingham, Northampton, etc. Note also that the December 1948 Theatre World had a big spread on it with nine photographs [12]. Voceditenore (talk) 17:10, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:15, 19 February 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. The policy based arguments are firmly in favor of deletion. J04n(talk page) 16:17, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Juicy Jay's[edit]

Juicy Jay'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)

Article is a non-notable company without any sources. The information in the article reads like an advertisement for the company. Unable to locate any reliable and independent sources to support any claims in the article. Plenty of retail websites selling the product but nothing talking about it. Fails GNG. MoreLessLEI (talk) 21:41, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - Where to begin. First, I would request that you assume good faith WP:AGF. I am the creator of the article Jaspen Papers but the only connection that I have with them is that I use them more than any other brand. You state that there is a conflict of interest from me, which if using the product gives me a conflict then consider me guilty. According to Wikipedia's conflict of interest policy WP:COI, I would not be barred from editing this topic or others simply because I use the product. If anything, I would be encouraged to edit the topics if I have personal, unbiased knowledge. Regarding the "Wiki revenge" accusation, I can tell you that I am not upset about the article being deleted. I used other articles as a template for it and felt that the one I wrote was far better referenced and notable than others. After the deletion, I simply looked at the others to find out how they were still on Wikipedia if they did not have any references. The ones that I felt did not meet the guidelines of notability I then sent to deletion discussion. Sorry if you feel this is revenge. I do question your conflict of interest. You seem to be pretty upset about this article being recommended for deletion. Are you an owner of representative of the company? If so, I would suggest that you become more familiar with the guidelines on conflict of interest. Also, I will be removing the rollingpapers.net link from the article again. It is a self-promotional link owned by the same company that owns Juicy Jay's. It is not a review site, but a promotional website. I have filed a blacklist claim on it for spam and will be supplying additional information to investigate the accusation [13]. Please allow the deletion discussion to go on without removing the template. Now, regarding the websites that you listed as references, these are not really the type of references that establish notability. Also, the information that you claim about it being the "only" and that it sues the government needs to be supported by references, not just in your statements. --MoreLessLEI (talk) 17:51, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Rollingpapers.net - Wikipedia policy on external links WP:EXT allow external links that contain "neutral and accurate material." As Rollinpapers.net is owned by the same company that owns Juicy Jay's and several other rolling paper brands, it is not a neutral and accurate source. It is a promotional site for the purpose of bringing credibility to the brands. I am not going to remove them for the moment so that the recommendation to put it on the spam list can show which articles they are located in. --MoreLessLEI (talk) 18:01, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Docvegetal removed the AfD template from the article before the AfD process was closed; I have restored it until the deletion process is complete. --Colapeninsula (talk) 15:58, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks Colapeninsula, it was just so silly. Check the previous history you'll see this page was already NFD'd before and the decision was to Keep. Docvegetal (talk) 16:43, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I could not locate a previous deletion discussion on this topic. It may have been from a talk page discussion, but would have no bearing on this discussion.--MoreLessLEI (talk) 17:51, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

More info: The nominator had tried to speedy delete this and other pages (could be mistaken on this one). When that didn't work he went to this full deletion request. He also tried getting sites that aren't favorable to him blacklisted, that didn't work either. You can check his contributory history to see what I mean. Anyway, have a look at the page in question (I updated it), if there are changes you think should be made that would make it keepable please let me know and I'll try to work on them. I think the page is maybe 10 years old now and has had several versions. The older versions had more information but might be too ad-like Docvegetal (talk) 20:44, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - Thank you for your input. I agree that there are other brands of rolling paper. The question is, what makes this one notable? The fact that there are other rolling paper articles falls into WP:OSE. If you could help me by telling me what makes this brand notable and also point me to the independent (other than Rollingpapers.net or RollYourOwn Magazine) and reliable sources that support the claim of notability? Thanks. --MoreLessLEI (talk) 17:29, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Thanks for the comment. I do follow what you are saying. Although a woman's underwear may not be notable to most men, that is not what governs notability on Wikipedia (Wikipedia:Notability). The topic must have received "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." I would be more than happy to change my vote to keep if you can point these sources out to me. On Wikipedia, notability is not in the eye of the beholder, but in the guidelines and policies set forth by consensus WP:CON.--MoreLessLEI (talk) 17:29, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Thanks for both comments and I agree that this page is notable. The significant coverage in reliable sources is already laid out in the article, unless you don't agree that the court dockets and media are significant coverage. Moreover I don't think there truly is anything I could do to get a personMoreLessLEI who created a page Jaspen Rolling papers, then had their page deleted, then they tried speedying brands that compete with Jaspen Rolling papers, then when that didn't work they tried listing the pages as regular deletions, to change their mind. It would be like asking the NRA to allow an anti-gun bill to pass... Your conflict is so large that I am asking you to stop commenting on pages that are related to Jaspen Rolling papers or its competitors. Docvegetal (talk) 18:52, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Rolling Paper Warehouse – A retailer that distributes Juicy Jay Rolling Papers. Hardly independent. You can see from their Facebook page that they blatantly advertise rolling paper brands owned by HBI.
Roll Your Own Magazine – While “technically” you could make a case for independence, it is clear by the advertisements on the site that they are connected to HBI (the owner of Juicy Jay’s and Raw) by selling them advertising space. Also, the links to the site you provided is all promotional material which can hardly be taken as reliable.
Metrolyrics – As stated previously, we do not know if the lyrics in the song are actually referring to the rolling paper or not. Assuming that they are, this is just a passing mention and not “significant” coverage as outlined in Wikipedia notability guidelines WP:GNG.
Cspnet.com – While this may look like an independent publication, an Alexa search shows that it is related to the website smoothtobacco.com [14]. So much for independence
Tobacco.org – This is simply a syndication of the article listed above in cspnet.com. Cannot be considered an additional reference. It is a republication of the one above.
SmokersInfo.net – Don’t know what to make of this one. Seems like a well laid out website, but is it reliable? Alexa rank for the site shows it at 4,334,620. That is quite high if the source is credible. Also, even if this article was posted in the New York Times, suing someone does not make you notable. Many tobacco companies and manufacturers of tobacco products have sued the government. Companies cannot be notable simply based on one single event 99 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability_%28people%29#People_notable_for_only_one_event). If it were, maybe a redirect into the article Tobacco politics would be more appropriate?--MoreLessLEI (talk) 19:30, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

9. Jaspen will be respectful and kind to others…even to those who knowingly lie about or disrespect our people, brand, or products. ' Please stop commenting on a competitors product. I'm sorry that your Wiki page was speedy deleted by Admins. The Jaspen Rolling Paper finished images you uploaded and did incorrect/incomplete releases for still need to be removed though. Please don't upload images without a proper release, it creates copyright issues for Wikipedia. If I could undo the Admins decision to delete your brand page I would. I can tell it's very important to you. Docvegetal (talk) 19:54, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

CommentRemember that we have a page here on Wikipedia for Rolling Paper. We have a whole topic on the subject. Juicy Jays is the only remaining major brand of flavored rolling papers in the world. They went so far as to sue the US Federal Government to remain in the marketplace. They are made in the town where rolling papers were first created (Alcoy Spain). They're a pretty big brand and have even been in movies. Have a look; http://www.juicyjays.com/history.html If this unique brand isn't notable, than it's unlikely that any rolling paper brand would be notable and the entire Rolling paper page should be deleted. Docvegetal (talk) 03:52, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This !vote is the editor's second edit. --Hammersoft (talk) 21:41, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:19, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy KEEP This is one of the best brands out there. If any rolling paper article should be in Wikipedia, Juicy Jay's should. — Preceding unsigned comment added by REMI2013 (talk • contribs) 21:30, 11 February 2013 (UTC) — REMI2013 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

  • Note: This !vote is the editor's first and (so far) only edit. --Hammersoft (talk) 21:41, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 00:19, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I am not sure why you continue to accuse me of being a competitor of the page but it is time to WP:DROPIT. By the way you write, it would appear that you are closely related to the company who owns Juicy and Raw and therefore you yourself have a conflict of interest. I have disclosed mine as that of a consumer of the product, you have failed to disclose anything. So, it would be good for you to disclose your COI for the administrator who will have to close this discussion. Also, I am getting pretty sick and tired of your accusations. I have done nothing but stick to Wikipedia policies during the nomination and throughout the discussion of this article. All you have done is continued to focus on ME and NOT THE ARTICLE. As such, I beg you (once again like I have done many times in the past) to tell me HOW JUICY JAY'S MEETS WIKIPEDIA NOTABILITY GUIDELINES WP:GNG. Unfortunately, there is no "keep for conflict of interest" policy. If anything, an article would be deleted for someone having a conflict of interest (such as you). There is a clause called the snowball clause which I cited and still request that it be used. There is no sense of continuing this discussion when all you are doing is making accusations and taking focus off of the article which is NOT NOTABLE! If you have an issue with me, please report me to the administrator noticeboard. Although you will be wasting their time, I would love for them to come and also comment on the article's notability. --MoreLessLEI (talk) 17:06, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - While trying to toe the line without making an accusation, it is funny how someone who's username is a promotion for their own advertising company comes on to Wikipedia after only making 2 edits in the last 2 months for the sole purpose of voting keep on this article. With that aside, your vote says the article should be kept with changes. Please tell me what changes you feel need to be made. Unfortunately, removing references does not do anything for notability. Also, you still left a reference to Roll Your Own Magazine which advertises the products. You should probably delete that reference as well. I would like to know, like I have asked others who have failed to respond with any logical explanation, how does this page meet the Wikipedia notability guidelines WP:GNG?--MoreLessLEI (talk) 17:06, 19 February 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.
This page should be revived for sure! Juicy Jay's are a fairly large brand and have a nice following. Why did this page even get deleted in the first place? SweetShawn999 (talk) 22:42, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. J04n(talk page) 11:56, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Tim Joyce[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Tim Joyce (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)

Still believe that this meteorologist is non-notable per WP:BIO. Previous AfD was closed as no consensus. Ks0stm (T•C•G•E) 18:05, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oregon-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:49, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:49, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:49, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:49, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 00:14, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. J04n(talk page) 10:57, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dan Hausel[edit]

Dan Hausel (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 started to look at this article which was written largely by Dan himself - firstly to remove puffery and some of the Who's Who vanity scam awards from the American Biographical Institute which are more an indication of gullibility rather than notability. After looking at what's left, I'm not convinced this passes WP:ACADEMIC so I thought I should nominate for further discussion. Many of the sources are primary, or local in nature. -- nonsense ferret 17:34, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:44, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:44, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:44, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:44, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:44, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Quite prepared to accept I've got this all wrong, but wouldn't notability be based on the things that other people write about Dan and his studies, rather than the things he himself writes? ---- nonsense ferret 01:33, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 00:13, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
After further digging I'm changing my vote to Weak Keep. My reasoning is in a comment below. Papaursa (talk) 03:14, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I see where you are coming from, but I just get the impression that coverage is a bit 'localised' in nature. --nonsense ferret 20:37, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I felt the same way, but the deciding source for me was him being quoted by CBS [17]. I would like to have seen more coverage of him, but I think there's enough to show he's considered quite knowledgeable in his field. That was enough for me to change my vote. I agree with Agricola's assessment of, and his ideas for, fixing the article. Papaursa (talk) 03:14, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I take on board your points, I don't think that is an unreasonable position at all. I probably won't withdraw the nomination yet though. I think he does a job of state geologist which involves writing the geological survey which is published each year, and I suppose anyone that does that job would have as many articles to their name, and probably a few mentions in the press. I have to decide whether is this role notable in itself? for me probably not. Then I think well is he so distinguished amongst other people that do similar jobs that just involve publishing geological surveys each year and sometimes talking to the local press? Is his contribution to his field more significant than just doing this non notable job? For me probably not, but I do respect your view entirely and I'll happy to move to whatever consensus seems to develop, but if its a keep, i do think the article needs quite a bit of work, so well volunteeered :) --nonsense ferret 03:41, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Can you be a bit more specific about which ones please, and secondly as above, notability depends on what other people write about you, not about what you write. --nonsense ferret 20:37, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Agricola44 detailed above why this subject meets academic guidelines, and I support that conclusion. The subject is obviously not an academic all-star, but easily meets Wikipedia guidelines.--SouthernNights (talk) 12:25, 17 February 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) LlamaAl (talk) 01:34, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Gangadhara Vajapeyi[edit]

Gangadhara Vajapeyi (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)

Unsourced. Tagged as confusing and unreferenced since April 2007 Mdann52 (talk) 13:43, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 14:26, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 14:27, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 14:27, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger One ping only 03:44, 6 February 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, LlamaAl (talk) 00:13, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - did major clean up and fixing of red links, copy edits, etc.Jethwarp (talk) 08:08, 13 February 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) LlamaAl (talk) 00:07, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Lismore Turf Club[edit]

Lismore Turf 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)

A single regional race track is not notable, and a google news search did not reveal any significant WP:RS coverage. ReformedArsenal (talk) 06:20, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 06:40, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 06:40, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
—Northamerica1000(talk) 05:16, 7 February 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, LlamaAl (talk) 00:12, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge to Russian mafia. (non-admin closure) LlamaAl (talk) 16:09, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Depiction of Russian mafia in entertainment[edit]

Depiction of Russian mafia in entertainment (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)

Is basically a list of movies where Russian mobsters were the antagonists; all unreferenced and does not contribute anything to their depiction in entertainment. Grammarxxx (What'd I do this time?) 07:49, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:57, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:57, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree its not a great stand-alone article as is, but there's no reason to delete when this sort of list would be most appropriate in the "In popular media" section of the Russian Mafia article, where it originated. Cdtew (talk) 04:57, 13 February 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, LlamaAl (talk) 00:12, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • While that one statement may be peacocking, I don't think it's OR to say that movies which discuss or include Russian mafia figures are depictions of Russian mafia. I think you're missing my point that this was originally a part of an "In popular media" section of the Russian Mafia page, and should at the least be merged back into it. Cdtew (talk) 04:57, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I have no problem with an "in popular culture" section in the main article. Borock (talk) 06:47, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect. Non admin closure Eduemoni↑talk↓ 16:32, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Commercial Crew and Cargo Program[edit]

Commercial Crew and Cargo Program (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)

WP:N Ushau97 talk contribs 13:03, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep. Major US Government programme, nominator has provided no rationale for why it might not be notable. --W. D. Graham 14:26, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WP:N morrissinger talk contribs 13:03, 6 February 2013 (UTC) I see the article, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commercial_Crew_and_Cargo_Program, has been marked for deletion and has been marked in violation of U.S. Copyright law. As to the first of these points, the article is notable, if for no other reason, because one of the programs run by the subject of the article has an extensive wikipedia article of its own: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commercial_Orbital_Transportation_Services[reply]

As to the claim that the text of the article violates copyright, I assume this must pertain to the text of the article, which is based in large part (though not exactly) on the text from the corresponding page of the NASA website. Please see 17 U.S.C. s. 105 (2013), which reads, in the relevant part:

"Copyright protection under this title is not available for any work of the United States Government"


Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:21, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:21, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:21, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 00:12, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) —Theopolisme (talk) 02:17, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

United Nations Office of the High Representative for the Least Developed Countries, Landlocked Developing Countries and Small Island Developing States[edit]

United Nations Office of the High Representative for the Least Developed Countries, Landlocked Developing Countries and Small Island Developing States (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 about an obscure, non-notable UN office with an inordinately flamboyant title. The entire article consists of a single sentence, most of which is a restatement of the title and redundant links to other articles. Fails WP:ORG. - MrX 04:21, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 06:58, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 00:10, 13 February 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. If the creator or anyone else would like the page to be userfied please let me know. J04n(talk page) 12:00, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Murder of Brandon Brown[edit]

Murder of Brandon Brown (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)

per WP:NOT#NEWS. The college player wasn't notable when he was alive, and his death, one among thousands of murders each year in the USA, doesn't seem anything more than a local affair  Ohconfucius ping / poke 03:43, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. Paul McDonald (talk) 03:55, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Kansas-related deletion discussions. Paul McDonald (talk) 03:55, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:14, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Points well taken. Now the question(s) becomes; "Is there need for a preponderance of articles concerning murders per se' each and every time"; 1) one occurs 2) is what we'd call "current" 3) someone, somewhere, has mentioned in sources that someone else, somewhere else heard about 4) has some social relevance or imperative that would merit it's need for an article over, say, similarly generated article for a non-sports figure, such as a brilliant lab student killed in a violent border clash with radical Canadian guerillas, or even regular ol' Kansas kid falls in hole and gets killed in China by unsolved bandits. Now not to base this on "X has this, so Y has this too", but rather the entirety of "do we need it at all anyway in such volume"? Must we languish in sullen news while we ponder here, and once it is solved, will it be of significance sufficient to maintain later, or are we simply creating a ghetto of articles to "get around to fixing again" later? All just curios. Ren99 wha? 19:11, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Need Wikipedia is not about what we "need" because, quite simply, we don't really "need" Wikipedia itself. We "want" Wikipedia. As to some of the other articles you find interesting, you might read up on the 2005 University of Oklahoma bombing or maybe the story of Joseph (son of Jacob). Not exact matches to what you reference, but not far off either.--Paul McDonald (talk) 20:13, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment "Want" and "Need" are conceptual ideals, each dependent on individual interpretation. The context in form above is simple convenience. But there is no loss on the idea of use - is it useful for perpetuity, or is it simply there for perpetuity? Dying on the moon is one thing, but if no one knew of it, what difference would it make or concern? Like a bear in the woods, if not heard...is it really worth separating from some other bear event? And of course, there is the besmirchment of another young man who participated in sports, and met an unfortunate, unsolved, and untimely end of violence. Article after article of mysterious killings, etc in all proportions containing thus? The facts are not even known in this particular article's events (note: "ongoing investigation") Ren99 wha? 20:27, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Maybe you're right. Gotta watch the Chewbacca reasoning. Let's see who else comes along :) Ren99 wha? 04:23, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Let's look at those:

  1. Biography of victim That is an editing issue, not a deletion issue. WP:SOFIXIT comes to mind.
  2. WP:EFFECT argues that the event must have lasting effect. As mentioned above, it is a relatively new event and attempting to portray any lasting effect at this time would violate WP:CRYSTAL. Because of that, the "Effect" argument states: "This does not, however, mean recent events with unproven lasting effect are automatically non-notable." Therefore, this does not apply.
  3. WP:INDEPTH is clearly passed with in-depth coverage in Sports Illustrated, Fox Sports, USA Today, and ESPN for starters.
  4. WP:PERSISTENCE is a re-hash of the "effect" argument above. I suppose I could say it could become a case study with the uniqueness of the football-related issues, but there is no way to tell until the trial is complete. But if you want to check out a google search of "college football player murdered" you'll find that it's the #1 subject.

In short, there is nothing weak about the topic at all. It has significant, in-depthy, wide coverage and as new information develops it is continuously published.--Paul McDonald (talk) 04:35, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A biographical article titled after an event is still a biographical article. The burden to fix it is on those who think it should be kept. The SI and USA Today articles are lengthy and lend credence to WP:INDEPTH but I would like to see more than two. The Fox Sports and ESPN links are the same brief AP report immediately after the murder. I agree that it is a violation of WP:CRYSTAL to create an article that you think will eventually pass WP:EFFECT and WP:PERSISTENCE. I'm sure there are plenty of others who will agree with your position on this. Location (talk) 05:20, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Why should anyone be forced to wait to pass WP:EFFECT and WP:PERSISTENCE when WP:GNG is surpassed already? Further, there is no "burden to fix" in AfD: if it can be "fixed" then the article should be kept so that it can be fixed unless it violates some policy. And as for wanting to see more than two, there are 12 sources on the page from local, regional, and national coverage. Thanks for pointing out that the Associated Press thought it significant enough to write about and that ESPN agreed and picked up the story. At least twice. It made me look, it turns out The Huffington Post also seems to consider the story significant.--Paul McDonald (talk) 05:36, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Whether or not WP:GNG is "surpassed" is not a matter of waving your hand and saying "it is so". WP:GNG refers to WP:WWIN which refers to WP:NOT#NEWS. Where there is a question as to whether an event covered in the news is noteworthy, then WP:EVENT, which include WP:EFFECT and WP:PERSISTENCE, becomes the relevant guideline. There is no dispute that this has received news coverage, so the AP and Huff Post reports don't really add anything to the discussion. Location (talk) 05:50, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Now it's in the news too much to be notable?--Paul McDonald (talk) 12:38, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Library for similar discussions, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kelsey Smith, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Murder of Emily Sander, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Emily Sander.--Paul McDonald (talk) 13:04, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Note: we gotta avoid: If "A,B,C then X,Y,Z", so discourse concerning other similar/dissimilar articles is moot. I have to again favor the arguments that are additionally presented that this is simply not an article space to retain at this time and hold firm to prior statements. This type of event occurs/has occurred/will occur countless times in human history with no impact on Planet Earth save in passing. Ren99 wha? 00:31, 10 February 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Barada (talk • contribs) [reply]
  • I'll bite How many times in the past have two football players from one college killed a football player from another college after a football game that led to nationwide coverage of the event by Sports Illustrated, USA Today, ESPN, Huffington Post, and Fox Sports? Additionally, you say we have to avoid comparison of this event to other events and then you immediately following compare it to other events. Pick one.--Paul McDonald (talk) 00:43, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I find this deletion !vote to be insufficient as saying that it is a non notable murder etc is very easy to write but I think some examples on why it is not notable is needed then. Because from what I can see this case has recieved sufficient press and is notable beyond an average murder.--BabbaQ (talk) 12:05, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It is an "argument without an argument" as outlined at WP:JUSTNOTNOTABLE, one of the Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions.--Paul McDonald (talk) 12:31, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 00:09, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You've already contended above that in your opinion NOTNEWS doesn't apply. I contend here that it does. Murder cases are big news events; those that have lasting social significance are regarded as subjects of sufficient magnitude to support stand-alone articles. The overwhelming majority, however, are generally regarded as tragic news events. It may be that the peculiar circumstances behind the killing, the football angle, is unusual enough to generate lasting coverage and analysis bigger than the residue of the single news event. In my opinion this does not rise to that level. Incorporating much of this same information into a biography of the victim would cause me less concern than would another addition to the plethora of True Crime Murder of... articles. Carrite (talk) 16:41, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'll also note the lead of this article is already set up to be a biography of the victim. Assuming there are a couple sources to be had between athletic department biographies and obituaries, why not flesh this out as a biography? That would, assuming the sources are out there — which they should be, an encyclopedic topic that would pass under GNG. Please do consider that. Note to closing administrator - if this doesn't close as no consensus or keep, please make sure the creator has an opportunity to have his work userfied. Carrite (talk) 16:53, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting. The AFDs mentioned above seem to favor articles such as Murder of Kelsey Smith and Murder of Emily Sander rather than articles named solely for the victim. Comments, anyone?--Paul McDonald (talk) 18:03, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
All I can say is that this is definitly not a memorial article, And not news? once again, wikipedia is built on news so I have never generally understood why we have a NOTNEWS guideline. Anyway I think this is a murder that goes beyond your average murder, as seen by the coverage etc.--BabbaQ (talk) 12:05, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Paul, please read WP:BLUDGEON. LibStar (talk) 23:46, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I like the part that says "It is okay to answer one or two comments that are either quoting the wrong policy, or asking a question." You are quoting the wrong policy. I like WP:ALLARGUMENTS.--Paul McDonald (talk) 23:58, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

if there was ever a classic example of WP:BLUDGEON, this is it. LibStar (talk) 00:04, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was redirect to Battle of Xiangyang (191). Content, if any is desired to be merged, can be merged from history with proper attribution. If other Lü Gongs who might be notable turn up, the redirect can be turned into a dab page. The Bushranger One ping only 09:05, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Lü Gong[edit]

Lü Gong (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 historical person is not notable enough to have a specific article on him. He was the subject of only a few lines in an annotation in the historical text Records of the Three Kingdoms, which briefly mentions his role in the death of Sun Jian. (又云：劉表將呂公將兵緣山向堅，堅輕騎尋山討公。公兵下石。中堅頭，應時腦出物故。其不同如此也。) As the creator of this article, I nominate it for deletion. LDS contact me 16:32, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 00:27, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 00:27, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 00:27, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J04n(talk page) 16:07, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge / redirect to Battle of Xiangyang (191), which appears to be Lu Gong's moment of significance. --Lockley (talk) 19:00, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
A redirect is not unreasonable. However, deletion would be a better choice because there might be other significant persons who share the same name. LDS contact me 10:10, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mediran (t • c) 10:54, 6 February 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, LlamaAl (talk) 00:09, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. No clear consensus after multiple relistings. The Bushranger One ping only 09:03, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yu Mi[edit]

Yu Mi (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 fictional -- the Japanese Wikipedia article indicates that references could be found in the Records of the Three Kingdoms biographies for Sun Ce and Liu Yao (warlord), but I can't find any references to him in either of those two biographies. Not a particularly significant character in the fictional Romance of the Three Kingdoms. Delete. --Nlu (talk) 17:33, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 03:15, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 03:15, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 03:15, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger One ping only 22:37, 29 January 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, →Bmusician 03:51, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:09, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:09, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 00:09, 13 February 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) -- Patchy1 REF THIS BLP 10:02, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Kost Novytsky[edit]

Kost Novytsky (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)

Unsourced BLP. I haven't been able to find any useful sources to add to the article to provide evidence of notability. If anyone can find reliable sources I would be happy with a speedy keep. -- Patchy1 REF THIS BLP 07:16, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There's some info in Cyrillic: [21]. (I'm nuetral with respect to removal for notability).Faustian (talk) 14:10, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 05:24, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 05:24, 30 January 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, -- Patchy1 REF THIS BLP 02:35, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 00:08, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  1. have been awarded by Presidential decree the title Merited Artist of Ukraine,[6] and
  2. to have been featured in a half-hour long television program made by the State Television Service.[7]
--Very trivial (talk) 08:15, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

References[edit]

  1. ^ "Pasadena Star News". Wikipedia. Wikipedia. Retrieved 15 February 2013.
  2. ^ "WetPaint". Wikipedia. Wikipedia. Retrieved 15 February 2013.
  3. ^ http://www.soc.mil/Assorted%20pages/Privacy%20and%20Security.html
  4. ^ It is widely held that the MRCCR was developed in the mid to later 1800s in the Murray River region of South Eastern Australia.
  5. ^ http://trove.nla.gov.au/work/167149267?q=curly+retriever&c=picture&versionId=182150534
  6. ^ "Указ, Президент України Про присвоєння почесних звань України працівникам Державної заслуженої капели бандуристів України, м. Київ ("President's Decree for Awarding of Merited Artist of Ukraine for the National Bandura Capella of Ukraine") N 557/93, 26.11.1993". Government of Ukraine. 26 November 1993.
  7. ^ Broadcast of Kostantyn Novytsky teaching and discussing the bandura by the Ukrainian Government television channel "Kultura" in 2010.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. J04n(talk page) 12:01, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank You (MKTO song)[edit]

Thank You (MKTO 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)

A stub class article failing WP:NSONG. Recreated after speedy deletion. Notability of the linked artists is itself in question. — Bill william comptonTalk 16:00, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:16, 11 February 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, LlamaAl (talk) 00:07, 13 February 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) -- Patchy1 REF THIS BLP 10:03, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Lee Ji Hyun[edit]

Lee Ji Hyun (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 singer. It has been redirected to Jewelry (band) three times (most recently by me) and reverted three times by the same user, yet no evidence of notability have been added. I am suggesting it be redirected to Jewelry (band), and this AfD used to make sure it stays that way, or is improved to include evidence of notability. -- Patchy1 REF THIS BLP 10:28, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 14:04, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 14:04, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 14:04, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Changed to keep since it appears that the two [not three] effective AfD by redirect each failed to leave a message on the stub-creators Talk, and also this AfD has been - in good faith I'm sure - notified to SKS who is the original redirect creator, not the later stub creator. This is evidently sourceable and the editor should have been encouraged on his/her Talk to do so. I've now done that. In ictu oculi (talk) 05:12, 3 February 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, TBrandley (what's up) 23:55, 6 February 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, LlamaAl (talk) 00:00, 13 February 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.
More