The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. ·Add§hore· ^{Talk To Me!} 01:05, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Elephant Army[edit]

Elephant Army (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 a non-notable topic - no indication it has been covered by multiple reliable sources; therefore fails WP:N. Lack of notability together with the wording of the title makes it unsuitable for retaining a redirect. C679 17:14, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. C679 17:18, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. C679 17:18, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2013 January 11. Snotbot  t • c »  17:51, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2013 January 11. Snotbot  t • c »  22:36, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:ORG. Run-of-the-mill fan club about which nothing encyclopedic can be said. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 06:11, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - no evidence of notability. GiantSnowman 09:49, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Govvy (talk) 14:00, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - has not been subject of significant coverage, and fails WP:GNG. Mentoz86 (talk) 10:44, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - does not meet WP:N and relies entirely on self-published or primary sources.—Baldy Bill (talk) 22:09, 17 January 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. ·Add§hore· ^{Talk To Me!} 01:05, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Burke (American football)[edit]

Paul Burke (American football) (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:NSPORT and WP:GNG. Ordinary college career, and failed to play in any professional games, not making it any further than the practice squad. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:40, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Fails WP:NCOLLATH and WP:NGRIDIRON. Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 22:58, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:47, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:47, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Non-notable former college football player. Not entitled to a presumption of notability per WP:NCOLLATH (no major national awards) or WP:NGRIDIRON (never played in a regular season pro game), and there is insufficient coverage in multiple independent, reliable sources to satisfy the general notability guidelines per WP:GNG. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 03:21, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete coverage I see is routine, and about half the coverage anyways when searching for Burke Idaho is passing mentions of a police officer with the same name in the local small town newspaper. Secret ^account 05:33, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete does not appear to pass WP:GNG or any other notability measure I can find. Would change my position if information surfaces.--Paul McDonald (talk) 06:18, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Not notable college player who never played a professional game. Fails WP:GNG....William 11:19, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Had a pedestrian college career, and not having played in any pro league (at least the NFL, can't find a source stating any other league), fails WP:NGRIDIRON. ZappaOMati 15:57, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - not notable.--Staberinde (talk) 10:57, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. While college players can qualify under WP:GNG even if they never play in the NFL, I am not finding sufficient non-trivial coverage of Burke to pass GNG. The best I find is a brief announcement in a Moscow, Idaho, newspaper reporting on his signing a pro contract: [1]. Cbl62 (talk) 19:40, 16 January 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. ·Add§hore· ^{Talk To Me!} 01:06, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Catalyst IT Services[edit]

Catalyst IT Services (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)

enough indication of possible importance to pass speedy, but I do not consider that being listed in one city's 40 under 40 demonstrates anything more than "might be notable someday", and the other factors listed are not particularly significant. DGG ( talk ) 19:23, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. The article does not demonstrate that the company has achieved notability per WP:CORP. —C.Fred (talk) 19:25, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2013 January 11. Snotbot  t • c »  19:40, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - per WP:CORP, spectacularly non-notable. ukexpat (talk) 19:57, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Unless Notability can be established, should be deleted per WP:CORP TheMesquito (talk) 23:08, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, not notable, hardly even a claim to notability. Hairhorn (talk) 04:15, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per all of the above (and because I'm too lazy to !vote to save it). GregJackP Boomer! 02:14, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:41, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Certainly not notable and doesn't come close to passing GNG. – Richard BB 22:02, 14 January 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. ·Add§hore· ^{Talk To Me!} 01:06, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Rostislav Bogoslevsky[edit]

Rostislav Bogoslevsky (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:BIO and delete per WP:BLPCRIME - no conviction and just vague allegations of animal abuse. ukexpat (talk) 18:42, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:29, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:29, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:29, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete may fail BLP1E, fails BIO, CRIME --Nouniquenames 18:35, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - fails blp1e and CRIME as per above and the nominator - I would throw some salt over it as well - Youreallycan 02:20, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as stated above. Andrew³²⁷ 17:17, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Definitely out of line with core content policies as well as BLP. causa sui (talk) 16:51, 14 January 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. Withdrawn: see comments in discussion by someone who clearly doesn't have hisself and his memory straight. Drmies (talk) 21:02, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Choosing Death: The Improbable History of Death Metal & Grindcore[edit]

Choosing Death: The Improbable History of Death Metal & Grindcore (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)

Bear with me. First of all, this is a non-notable book: there is no discussion I can find of the book itself in reliable sources. Second, I can't find a likely redirect. The book's author is Albert Mudrian, whose article (as you can see) is a redirect to the magazine he edits, Decibel (magazine). Now, there was an AfD on Mudrian, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Albert Mudrian, which was closed as "redirect to the magazine"--I don't know why Julian redirected it to this book he authored; something may have happened along the way. Either way, to redirect this title to the magazine, with Mudrian as a kind of intermediary, strikes me as redundant, so I'm proposing deletion. If you all think that the article views (there are some, to be fair) warrant a continued existence as a redirect, that's fine with me--if you wish to propose that, perhaps you are not unwilling to add a couple of lines to the Decibel article about this author and the two books he wrote/edited (the other being the non-notable Precious Metal (book), which I've just redirected to Decibel, a good target since it's based on features in that magazine). Thanks. Drmies (talk) 17:19, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2013 January 11. Snotbot  t • c »  17:46, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. The previous AfD established that sufficient coverage exists - take out the sockpuppets and consensus was for keeping. There's a lot linked from Mudrian's website ([2]) such as reviews from Maximunrocknroll, Terrorizer and Kerrang, plus there are others such as SPIN, CMJ New Music Monthly. The sockpuppet-nominated AfD on Mudrian only had input from three people, none of whom found the coverage of him that does exist. Shame. I found two articles from reliable sources on his other book, by the way. --Michig (talk) 18:27, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Hold on there, Michig--for some reason, when "AfD2" appeared, I was thinking of the AfD for the editor. Old age I suppose. Let me have another look. Drmies (talk) 20:57, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Well, waddayaknow. Guess whose the last "keep" vote was in that AfD. It is catching up with me, and I'll close this right away. Drmies (talk) 21:01, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Courcelles 00:17, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wyke Castle[edit]

Wyke Castle (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 know that one should assume good faith, but given that this property is currently for sale and has a website setup to promote the sale that is used as a reference in this article, it seems to me that this article might also be part of the efforts promote the property sale. Bob Re-born (talk) 15:58, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• As the article's creator, I am in no way interested in promoting the sale of the castle, and I don't see how the article comes across as simply something to promote any such a sale. Any reference to the property's sale is merely part of the factual history of the castle. The reference is mainly used for some of the castle's history. This is a Grade 2 listed building? Ajsmith141 (talk) 16:12, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2013 January 11. Snotbot  t • c »  16:17, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. It is difficult to see how a listed building, and a castle-like one at that, could not be notable. The article can undoubtedly be improved, and discussion of sale is likely to muddy the waters, but the topic appears obviously worth a place here. I'll copy-edit the worst bits out now. Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:10, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:36, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:36, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - that the article needs improvement is not a reason to delete it. Listed building status add weight to the case for notability. Mjroots (talk) 20:55, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Notable and referenced. If the only reason for deletion is the website promoting the sale of the property then I suggest we delete that. Let's not throw out the baby with the bathwater.--Ykraps (talk) 11:36, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - Another concern might be the paragraph describing the castle, which appears to be lifted wholesale from the English Heritage website. Give me a day or two and I will fix this.--Ykraps (talk) 11:50, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep -- This was part of an expansion of coastal defences in preparation for a war that never was. Certainly notable. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:24, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Not all Grade II listed buildings are inherently notable (although Grade II* and Grade I buildings are), but I think this one definitely is. Appalling reason for nomination. You can't delete an article just because you think (wrongly, apparently) that it might be used for commercial reasons. You have to have evidence it's spam and this clearly wasn't. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:28, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. It's a listed building, which is notable enough for my tastes. I've done plenty of articles of National Register of Historic Places properties in the United States, and even though some of them have been up for sale, that doesn't change their notability. Now, maybe if someone used real estate agent hype in the article to describe the house ("Super curb appeal! Lots of charm, in a nice neighborhood! Basement has plenty of potential!"), it might count as an ad, but I don't see that here. --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 23:07, 15 January 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. ·Add§hore· ^{Talk To Me!} 01:08, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

List of places with fewer than ten residents[edit]

List of places with fewer than ten residents (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)

Here we have a hopelessly incomplete list, one which can't possibly ever approach even a semblance of completion. Size concerns aside (Russia alone, for example, has thousands upon thousands of rural localities with a population of fewer than ten people; surely other countries in a similar situation exist), the threshold itself (ten people) is completely arbitrary, as witnessed by comments on the talk page. The few sources used in the list merely reference individual entries, but in no way assert the encyclopedic value of the list as a whole. Other concerns include WP:NOT (in particular, "Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information") and notability. Not even the definition of a "place" is given.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); January 11, 2013; 14:40 (UTC)

• Delete As non-quantifiable. A list of "places" doesn't really mean anything, as a "place" could be a street or a landmark. "List of municipalities" would probably never be complete either, and I seriously doubt the encyclopedic value of such a list anyway. —Ed!^(talk) 15:24, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I am expressing a concern that this article falls under WP:NOT. A place could mean a road or a settlement, but I don't find this list helpful and notable. Hto9950 (talk | contribs) 16:01, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Having edited this page few times to add the odd referenced russian settlement, I have seen it grow from quite an interesting list to an unmanageable mess. The uninhabited section is ridiculous and now takes up half the article, despite having a link to List of ghost towns, which surely is duplication. In addition there are places noted as uninhabited that have never been inhabited. This is patently illogial as there is essentially an infinite number of places that could be described as "uninhabited" depending on how small an area you defined as a "place". For the remainder of the article, I have WP:NOT conerns as well (which are also noted by others on the article talk page) as stopping at ten is an inherently arbitrary decision. I can see how there might be encyclopedic value in an article along the lines of List of settlements with one resident where settlement (or whatever word was used) would indicate an officially recognised "place", not just a house or general area, and one that was still in official existence, not one that had been abolished yet still had inhabitants. I don't however see much possibility of constructing such an article from this one as most of the places noted here as having one person populations either are unreferenced in the place's own article or do not even mention population. A shame though because it is quite an interesting set of links. Fenix down (talk) 16:13, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:05, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom, per WP:NOT, per lack of notability. Article is littered with unreferenced entries, some of which are more than likely based on original research or estimations rather than anything that is verifiable. Hwy43 (talk) 16:50, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:NOTDIR. The subject appears to be also be non-notable, and contains a number of unsourced entries, thus original research. It is similar to List of ghost towns as well. TBrandley ^{(what's up)} 17:10, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Such lists in Wikipedia fail because they assume a common worldwide context where none exists. We have had this before with 'cities' which can have an entirely different meaning in North America from the rest of the English speaking world, let alone the problem of translation from other languages. I suspect that the present article arose from US census criteria, but census units may be just a matter of convenience in each country. In much of Europe agricultural land settlement has often led to isolated farms nowadays occupied by a single family - they may be marked on the map by a place name which might be of considerable antiquity, but their size is of no encyclopedic significance in itself. Settlement patterns elsewhere may be different, as are administrative units. --AJHingston (talk) 19:54, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:NOTDIR. The fact that they have fewer than ten residents isn't very defining either. Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 23:00, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete another silly list, for all sorts of reasons. Why 10 and not 11? Nobody lives in my backyard, and that's a place, so shouldn't that be included? Disney World has lots of visitors but no residents, so it should technically be listed, as should most shopping malls, office parks, factories, etc. WP:NOTDIR protects us from this kind of thing. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 05:02, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above: it is a hopeless mess, and it is not a well-defined list. Bearian (talk) 23:44, 15 January 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. (Considering the lengthy delete !vote by 71.236.220.239 as an extended nom. rationale); The nom. doesn't seem based in policy; not only doesn't it mention any, but I find no existing policy that would explicitly support the argument. However no policy is brought forth in the other two !votes... Considering that, and the particular circumstances of this AfD, I'm reluctant to close as an actual keep; this is not a standard "No consensus" that would result from highly-divided arguments, but I find no policy-based arguments to delete. I'm reluctant to close as keep for the same reasons, but will default to it; the keep !vote seems closer to the general notability policies currently in place. NPASR. Salvidrim! ✉ 20:24, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Marc Mencher[edit]

Marc Mencher (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)

Completing nomination per WP:AGF for IP editor 71.236.220.239, who posted a request at WT:AFD. Looking at the article, I note that there are some reliable-looking sources already in place. Whether those sources show notability is something to discuss here, but it's worth noting. I also cannot find evidence that someone spamming links to their wiki article from LinkedIn is a violation of our policies, nor does it appear to be a cause for deletion - obviously, the reverse would be a different story. Some more detail about how this article is being used for promotion would be worthwhile, and I've asked the IP to provide that. On the merits, I make no recommendation. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 14:10, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have an account, so I can't do it, but I think it fails the notability test and he is using the article to promote himself in the spam he sends from LinkedIn. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.236.220.239 (talk) 06:16, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 16:28, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Noting that I work in the same industry as Mencher, and have met him in passing at a couple of conferences. He is definitely notable in his field, and as Ultraexactzz noted, there is nothing against policy for someone linking to a Wikipedia article from their LinkedIn profile. The article appears to have plenty of sources, and I see no valid reason to delete. --Elonka 17:54, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• DELETE. I can find nothing to suggest notability Deangunn (talk) 19:01, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 01:32, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:32, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. I have added several more sources to the article, just a small selection of the many available. Hopefully this will help clarify notability. --Elonka 17:12, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• DELETE. Perhaps I'm not well calibrated---and I apologize if this is the case---but I didn't think writing a few articles (plus a couple of books, that are only one tick above junk publishing) about something qualified one for inclusion in Wikipedia. If you remove from the article all the links that are dependent of the subject, does it satisfy the criteria that "people independent of the topic itself (or of its manufacturer, creator, author, inventor, or vendor) have actually considered the topic notable enough that they have written and published non-trivial works of their own that focus upon it – without incentive, promotion, or other influence by people connected to the topic matter"? I don't think so. It appears that this person has made a career out of being an expert on how to get jobs in the game industry---without ever actually working substantively in the game industry---and has contributed substantial biographical information about credentials, education, and employment that is not externally verifiable (largely, I presume, because very few people care...which is the point, isn't it?). I'm not an expert on Wikipedia practice and standards, but if this person deserves a Wikipedia article, then so do I...and I definitely don't deserve one! The point about LinkedIn is well taken---there's certainly nothing in and of itself wrong with someone linking to their own page---but it rubs me the wrong way: a person who is clearly deserving of a wikipedia article probably has better things to do with their time than use it for self promotional purposes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.236.220.239 (talk) 04:43, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Noting that 71.236.220.239 (talk · contribs) is the account that nominated this article for deletion in the first place. --Elonka 02:19, 17 January 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. ·Add§hore· ^{Talk To Me!} 03:26, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Analytical linguistics[edit]

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

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

The term "analytical linguistics" has been applied to any number of different pursuits within the field of linguistics. Sova's work may or may not be seminal in this field: the current article gives no indications either way. In either case, Sova's work can be described in the article about her. Having an entire article with the title "Analytical Linguistics" dedicated solely to her theory gives the incorrect impression that hers is the only theory. Rewriting the article to include all senses of the term would be impractical given the wide range of different pursuits that have been termed "analytical linguistics". WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 13:42, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Article has no sources and really needs to be wikified. Would be best to start over. —Ed!^(talk) 15:29, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete This theory lacks notability because it lacks a substantial number of independent peer reviewed journal articles and books related to it. ```` — Preceding unsigned comment added by Prsaucer1958 (talk • contribs) 23:05, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:30, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:30, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete for lack of notability. The article summarizes a book and a handful of articles by a single author, Ljubov Sova, but the theory developed in those pieces has not, as far as I can tell, had a major impact on linguistics or philology. I can't find any papers citing Dr. Sova's work. On the other hand, if there is anything relevant which can be supported and verified with reliable sources, it might be merged to L. Z. Sova. Cnilep (talk) 04:13, 12 January 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. WP:CSD#A7 JohnCD (talk) 21:31, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Praboo T. Arivananthan[edit]

Praboo T. Arivananthan (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. Same article under title Praboo Ariva was speedily deleted (A7) three times on Jan. 8, 2013 and recreated repeatedly. Creator has been warned multiple times for removing CSD tags and now for creating inappropriate pages. GregJackP Boomer! 13:21, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as non-notable. —Ed!^(talk) 15:30, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete per A7; non-notable topic with no assertion of importance, the only references that are available are self-published sources from websites like Facebook. TBrandley ^{(what's up)} 17:31, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete - clearly falls within A7. ukexpat (talk) 21:22, 11 January 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. MBisanz ^talk 04:45, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Splügen (disambiguation)[edit]

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

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

No need to splürge for a dab page with two entries; a hatnote from the municipality is all that is needed. (Note: there are two pages that redirect here.) Clarityfiend (talk) 13:06, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:23, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Switzerland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:23, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:23, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete per G6 and ((db-disambig)). -- JHunterJ (talk) 12:51, 12 January 2013 (UTC
• Speedy delete. I've added the appropriate hatnote, and checked that there ar redirects from Splugen and Spluegen to Splügen, so the two incoming "Splu(e)gen (disambiguation)" redirects aren't needed. PamD 14:19, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Just a thought: ((db-disambig)) insists on it being an "Orphan" dab page, so perhaps we need to consider this a Snow Delete instead? PamD 14:22, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  It is an orphan though. -- JHunterJ (talk) 16:01, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, they are incoming (orphan) redirects rather than links. Fine. PamD 12:52, 13 January 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. A lot of the keep arguments provide sources that indicate the subject passes the letter of WP:GNG. A few opposes claim "non-notable" without rationale. The other explains the sources' perceived lack of reliability or independence; previous consensus backs the reliability of the sources, and it is kind of expected that sources covering a similar topic to the subject's field are the ones used; musicians are discussed primarily in music-interested publications, and so on. Salvidrim! ✉ 20:04, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

John Bain (game commentator)[edit]

John Bain (game commentator) (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/Systemic bias Selmatoed (talk) 12:49, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as non-notable. —Ed!^(talk) 15:44, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Within the gaming industry he is very notable, and does a wide range of commentating during game tournaments, a sport in some countries. Other Youtubers who are just as well known have Wikipedia pages. NotMiserable (talk) 16:14, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 01:20, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:20, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:20, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per Ed! Also, "Other Youtubers who are just as well known have Wikipedia pages." is a classic WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS comment. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 06:07, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • How are you deleting per Ed when all he said was "non-notable"? Neither of you have brought an argument for the non-notability of this article. _Blake ^{(Talk·Edits)} 20:44, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep Eurogamer did a lengthy writeup about him. GameFront thinks his actions are worth writing about. As a creative professional, VG247 finds it worthwhile to showcase his pieces on their website. Rock, Paper, Shotgun also finds his work notable. As an entertainer, he has a large fan base. I see sufficient evidence here to demonstrate his notability. --Odie5533 (talk) 17:53, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • VG247 is not a reliable source, nor does the subject qualify as a Creative professional under Wikipedia:Generally_notable_people. Selmatoed (talk) 19:20, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • There is strong community consensus that says otherwise; if you truly believe vg247 is not reliable, you can try to form a new consensus, but until then I will continue using it as a reliable source. Regarding the essay you linked to, is there any guideline or policy to support this conclusion besides the user essay? --Odie5533 (talk) 06:42, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Has reliable sources that demonstrate notability as shown by Odie. _Blake ^{(Talk·Edits)} 20:44, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - The subject in question is notable, as per Odie5533's reasoning. --Droodkin (talk) 13:01, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Delete The subject is someone who makes YouTube videos of himself talking while other people play video games. This is not notable by any standard. Further, though video game-oriented outlets like "GameFront" or "Rock, Paper, Shotgun" might write about him, their standards for notability are not necessarily the same as those for an encyclopedia. NotMiserable's argument that "other Youtubers [sic] who are just as well[-]known have Wikipedia pages" falls under the WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS category (as mentioned by Andrew Lenahan). Additionally, this is a clear-cut case of WP:INN. BoneevoCharard (talk) 00:10, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  You seem to have developed your own standards for notability that are not in line with the GNG. This is not necessarily a proposition without merit, but it is one that is not founded in consensus. Additionally, please do not mark up my comments. If you feel the need to add your own comments, you could copy and paste my words and then mark those up, but please do not mark them up in place. It makes it look like those are my opinions, when nothing could be further from the truth. --Odie5533 (talk) 02:17, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• His interpretation of the GNG seems accurate to me. Can you provide reliable sources (not rock, paper, shotgun or gaming blogs with guest posters with little to no editorial oversight) which have provided significant coverage for this individual? (Wikipedia:Reliable_sources) Selmatoed (talk) 19:20, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The links that have been posted are from sites that have been deemed as reliable sources by WP:VG. They have shown to have editorial oversight, and are not just general "gaming blogs". _Blake ^{(Talk·Edits)} 06:06, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• The problem is that he has a false impression of what the subject in question actually does and is basing his deletion recommendation on something which is not true. Note that he claims "The subject is someone who makes Youtube videos of himself talking while other people play video games.". This is absolutely not the case. The subjects content clearly consists of review, critique and analysis which involves the subject speaking and providing his opinion of the title which he is playing. Regular news and comment content would appear to be present on the subjects Youtube channel on a daily basis and as regards to eSports related commentary, that is clearly recognized on Wikipedia regardless of BoneevoCharard opinion on the subject, which should not be up for discussion in this instance. The fact remains that the blogs you have mentioned have their own Wikipedia articles yet are less notable than the subject in question. Other Youtubers, also less notable than the subject in question have their own articles, it makes no actual sense to remove this one especially when the strongest supporters for the removal seem to not even know what the subject does to begin with due to their own personal ignorance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Esten12 (talk • contribs) 22:26, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per Odie. --Jon Ace ^{T C} 20:12, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Do you really mean to tell me that the most notable gaming journalist in the entire world with almost a million subscribers on Youtube, who had incredible influence on the entire gaming community, a man who has raised thousands of dollars for charity, has his own e-sports team, is a popular Starcraft commentator, and who is approached by indie developers as well as major publishers for game reviews; does not deserve a Wikipedia article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.112.244.136 (talk) 22:13, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Delete "Most notable gaming journalist" is not a fact. "who had incredible influence on the entire gaming community" - what are you talking about exactly? What influence has he had on everyone who plays video games? All these statements are incredibly vague - and untrue at that. Anyone with a computer can be an "indie developer," so anyone approaching an individual to review their game does not make the individual notable. Anyone can have an e-sports team. Your arguments are either overlapping/hyperbolic ("is the most notable" "is a popular" "has had incredible influence on the entire gaming community" "a man who has" etc.. That leaves that he has raised thousands of dollars for charity. So have many, many, many others who also are not notable enough for encyclopedia inclusion. Not notable - delete. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.209.8.172 (talk) 20:22, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. He is extremely notable in the gaming community. Has an incredibly popular YouTube channel, is cited by game journalists, and game developers often clamor to get his attention. --hello, i'm a member | talk to me! 03:53, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was : Speedily deleted. - Mike Rosoft (talk) 23:07, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Larry stylinson[edit]

This page has been blanked as a courtesy.

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. ·Add§hore· ^{Talk To Me!} 01:08, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

List of shopping malls in Roxas[edit]

List of shopping malls in Roxas (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 that offers no useful information. Should be merged into the parent article, but it links to a disambiguation page, so I have no clue where to link to. The Banner talk 11:23, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:10, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Shopping malls-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:10, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:10, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete If the malls aren't notable, the list isn't either. Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 23:01, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete The city is Roxas, Capiz and the reason why is I found it mention this Robinsons Place Roxas in the article. Anyways it's not even worth being merged so delete. JayJay^{What did I do?} 23:03, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - A brief mention of the malls in Roxas in the Roxas, Capiz article should be enough. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 06:01, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete- per above and multiple other AFDS from this article contributor, not nec and borderline spam. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 06:40, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Not notable at all. Xeltran (talk) 16:23, 15 January 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. ·Add§hore· ^{Talk To Me!} 01:09, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

List of tallest buildings in Iloilo City[edit]

List of tallest buildings in Iloilo City (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

No need for a separate article as most buildings do not yet exist, nor a really high (7 to 40 storeys). No articles or pictures available so article would become a dead end. Can me merged into the article of Iloilo City (where it doesn't link to) The Banner talk 11:14, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I guess the author disagrees, as he threatend to block me for five days: This Your 2 Warning if You did it again You will be Blocked 5 Days Because you want to Delete List of tallest Buildings in Iloilo City. The Banner talk 11:30, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Not suitable for a list, topic not shown to have been covered in reliable sources. Also fails WP:CRYSTAL. C679 11:42, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete A list of 7 buildings, none especially tall, is not up to the level of importance to be in an encyclopedia, even if there were references. By this standard we could have a list for every block in New York or Chicago. Kitfoxxe (talk) 14:15, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as non-notable. —Ed!^(talk) 15:35, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:08, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:08, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:08, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per above and warn page creator for disruption (including this removal of the AfD notice from the aritcle). AutomaticStrikeout (T • C) 18:05, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete The list doesn't appear to be notable, nor the buildings. Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 22:56, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - as much as Iloilo is a major city in the Philippines, there really aren't any particularly tall buildings there, and none of the building there are notable anyway. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 06:02, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom, the only contributions this author has made is similar lists, without information how they are notable. I'm also noting he is now blocked for disruption. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 06:42, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - list are not notable. Height of the buildings are not especially tall at all.--Wakowako (talk) 06:55, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - Consensus here appears to be strong. As such, I recommend that this AfD be deleted per WP:SNOW. It's a blizzard out here. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 07:04, 12 January 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. ·Add§hore· ^{Talk To Me!} 01:09, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Censorship of Adventure Time in Australia[edit]

Censorship of Adventure Time in Australia (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)

Entirely unsourced original research article on a non-notable subject. TheLongTone (talk) 10:49, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Not notable. Coverage of the subject is limited to blogs and forums. Any information with references can go in the main article on the show. --Colapeninsula (talk) 11:02, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - As with this others, poorly-written original research. Tarc (talk) 14:15, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as non-notable. —Ed!^(talk) 15:35, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Agree with TheLongTone (talk · contribs). JJ98 (Talk) 18:08, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. JJ98 (Talk) 20:48, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. JJ98 (Talk) 20:50, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete suggest merging this with Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Censorship of Regular Show in Canada. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 21:46, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Are afds mergable? there are three or four other similarly lame articles by the same editor up for deletion apart from the one above.TheLongTone (talk) 22:04, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's not often done, but these are so similar and so awful that I doubt anyone would mind. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 22:08, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Seems like needless effort really, all the discussions are going the same way:Censorship of The Amazing World of Gumball in Asia Pacific,(new & PRODed),Censorship of The Amazing World of Gumball in the United States,Censorship of The Amazing World of Gumball in Australia,Censorship of Regular Show in Latin America,Censorship of Regular Show in the United Kingdom,Censorship of Regular Show in Australia...apologies if I've duplicated or omitted, its a long and sorry tale.TheLongTone (talk) 22:27, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete If the content is notable and sourced, it should go in the Adventure Time article itself. Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 23:03, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Again, OR and incorrectly argued article as edits are for local concerns or timing and self-made by the local channel, not censorship by authorities. Nate • (chatter) 23:05, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per WP:SNOW. Same rationale as this similar article Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Censorship of The Amazing World of Gumball in the United States and these deleted ones Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Censorship of Regular Show in Canada. Unsourced OR fancruft written by the same author. Funny ^Pika 21:01, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedily deleted by User:DGG under criterion A7. (non-admin closure) • Gene93k (talk) 01:00, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Encircle Foundation[edit]

Encircle Foundation (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)

Seems to fail WP:CORP. I can find no mention of this company, except in this book, which was written by a member of the management team. Alexrexpvt (talk) 10:38, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete - per A7, clear case. ukexpat (talk) 21:25, 11 January 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. Courcelles 00:18, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas Modeneis - SouJava Leader[edit]

Thomas Modeneis - SouJava Leader (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)

Only hits I can find are non-independent coverage. So are the sources in the article. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 15:05, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nomination. He sounds like quite a cool guy, but there's no assertion of notability per WP:AUTHOR, WP:BIO or WP:ACADEMIC. No significant coverage online in WP:Reliable sources. Altered Walter (talk) 15:12, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:07, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:07, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:07, 5 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, — Yash ^[talk] 09:50, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as non-notable. —Ed!^(talk) 15:44, 11 January 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. ·Add§hore· ^{Talk To Me!} 01:10, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Censorship of The Amazing World of Gumball in the United States[edit]

Censorship of The Amazing World of Gumball in the United 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)

Original research, entiirely non-notable subject TheLongTone (talk) 09:16, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• delete unsourced, POV, and trivial; if any of it is true and can be cited, it can be put into the main article. Mangoe (talk) 13:47, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Broken Engrish, something about trimming a few seconds off of a cartoon to squeeze in more commercials being "censorship". Just a weird opinion/rant, not encyclopedic material. Tarc (talk) 13:55, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete No WP:RS evidence of censorship; even the article says it's not censorship. Might be original research though it could be copied from somewhere. This info could perhaps go in The Amazing World of Gumball if it was sourced, but maybe it's too trivial even for there. --Colapeninsula (talk) 14:48, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as non-notable. —Ed!^(talk) 15:44, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, agree with TheLongTone (talk · contribs). Does not meet WP:RS. JJ98 (Talk) 20:38, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. JJ98 (Talk) 20:48, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. JJ98 (Talk) 20:48, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete If the information is notable and sourced, it should go in the article for The Amazing World of Gumball. Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 23:03, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete All cuts seemed to be made for time and content to air in earlier hours, not censorship. Original editor would do well to understand the basics of standards and practices and that removal of content is called 'editing', not 'censoring' (which is limited to language and gestures). All OR, doubtful any of this could be shared in the main article. Nate • (chatter) 02:57, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Reads like a trivia rather than encyclopedic content and, as Nate mentioned, the article title is misleading. Funny ^Pika 20:47, 14 January 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 Richard Nixon. Courcelles 00:19, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Harold Nixon[edit]

Harold Nixon (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)

Subject was a teenage boy whose sole claim to fame is that he was the brother of a significantly more famous fellow. Complete failure of WP:BIO and WP:INHERIT. My apologies for taking this here, when in fact this should be a simple redirect to the Richard Nixon article, but a certain user insists this can only be taken to AfD in order to validate the obvious redirect. Ironically, the 2006 AfD had every editor except the article creator advocating either deletion or redirecting. Ravenswing 08:25, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Redirect as nomination, no content that cannot be included in Richard Nixon article.TheLongTone (talk) 09:25, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• merge to Richard Nixon (assuming this material isn't already included) Only notable as episode in brother's life. Mangoe (talk) 13:50, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge into Richard Nixon. —Ed!^(talk) 15:46, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to Richard Nixon. He's not notable independently. Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 23:05, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:57, 12 January 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 Richard Nixon. Courcelles 00:20, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Arthur Nixon[edit]

Arthur Nixon (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)

Subject was a seven year-old boy whose sole claim to fame is that he was the brother of a significantly more famous fellow. Complete failure of WP:BIO and WP:INHERIT. My apologies for taking this here, when in fact this should be a simple redirect to the Richard Nixon article, but a certain user insists this can only be taken to AfD in order to validate the obvious redirect. Ironically enough, the 2006 AfD had all but one editor advocating either deleting or redirecting the article. Ravenswing 08:21, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• merge to Richard Nixon (assuming this material isn't already included) Only notable as episode in brother's life. Mangoe (talk) 13:51, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge into Richard Nixon. —Ed!^(talk) 15:46, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to Richard Nixon. Like his brother, he's not notable independently. Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 23:05, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:54, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to Richard Nixon. Not notable enough on its own.--Staberinde (talk) 11:07, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge, no independent notability.TheLongTone (talk) 22:45, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to Richard Nixon, as per listed above TheMesquito (talk) 03:46, 15 January 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 (G7). Yunshui 雲‍水 13:13, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Zu, Afghanistan[edit]

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

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

No sources. ""NGA GeoName Database". National Geospatial Intelligence Agency. Archived from the original on 2008-06-08. Retrieved 2008-06-11." - does not work. Vyacheslav84 (talk) 05:42, 11 January 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. Given that the page has been expanded to a set index article, it would now seem to be fine, and therefore WP:NOTDICTIONARY does not apply anymore. (non-admin closure) TBrandley ^{(what's up)} 18:12, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Abhinav[edit]

Abhinav (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)

Wikipedia is not a dictionary, and there is already an entry at Wiktionary. TBrandley ^{(what's up)} 05:44, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - Wikipedia is platform where we give information of various things. so its nothing wrong in updating information even if its meaning of name. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pgi2010 (talk • contribs) 05:47, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and (after 7 related nominations) salt - per WP:NOTDICTIONARY. Stalwart111 05:50, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep – I have largely rewritten it as a standard given name page, so the editors who commented above may like to reconsider — Hebrides (talk) 09:43, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• That's much better. Suggest we keep that now, semi-protect it and keep an eye on the other attempts. Works fine as a given name/disambig. Nice work! Stalwart111 10:56, 11 January 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 PROUT in a Nutshell. MBisanz ^talk 04:47, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Discourses on PROUT[edit]

Discourses on PROUT (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 "book" of 34 pages,; the article is apparently designed to provide yet one more article for putting in the see alsos and the navbox listing everything connect with the author, however little they may be worth an article. I would have deleted it as G11 entirely promotional except that I've already become involved in some AfD discussions on the other works of this author. DGG ( talk ) 05:43, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete; seems to fail the GNG, even depending on primary sources there's very little to say; the article is just part of a broader pattern of promotional editing. bobrayner (talk) 09:48, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• article creator's comment: the book is a small book published for the first time on October 17, 1959. The reason of the article lies in the effort to describe one of the first works of the vast literary production of the author's. I will try to insert more secondary sources on it to show its adherence to the WP notability criteria. Bob and DGG: This was precisely the work I was trying to do. If something on the article seems to you "promotional" of course I'm here to change it, 'couse this was absolutely unintentional. My intent is to describe something on a neutral point of view. Please refrain from making statements that might appear offensive saying that I write an article doing promotional work. Tell me rather, in a constructive and rational basis, where the article appear to you promotional and thus I can change it. Thanks--Cornelius383 (talk) 17:56, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:19, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:19, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:19, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete (or, since they're cheap, redirect to Prabhat Ranjan Sarkar). Fails WP:GNG and WP:NBOOK. Significant secondary source coverage is required for a stand-alone article and I don't see it. Location (talk) 21:14, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak delete a book still in print after over 50 years would suggest notability, at least. That said, the article as written doesn't assert notability at all, or even try. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 05:13, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• article creator's comment: I recognize some of the concerns. As I said before I inserted this little book on WP for is historical value. This book later became part of the series PROUT in a Nutshell. If you agree I propose to merge on that article with a brief description.--Cornelius383 (talk) 16:35, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge: I agree with the article creator's suggestion above, it is deserving of coverage as a small but significant textbook but not its own Wikipedia article. Keep the title as a redirect page.—Baldy Bill (talk) 22:37, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: I disagree about merging this article with a nutshell series compilation. The book stands on its own merits, not just because it is still in print after more than 50 years but because it is one of the first publications relating to PROUT. The book went out of circulation for some time - and returned in a slightly condensed fashion - due to its revolutionary content. In other words, this book set out (and still to a large extent sets out) the PROUT paradigm for revolution and the establishment of a "cosmic society". --Abhidevananda (talk) 21:19, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• delete Sarkar obviously needs a list of works (which I imagine he already has) but something that has no footprint in GBooks whatsoever except in other PROUT texts is plainly not notable. Mangoe (talk) 15:43, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. postdlf (talk) 17:30, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Censorship of Regular Show in Canada[edit]

Censorship of Regular Show in Canada (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 consists of unsourced Fancruft which seems entirely original research. PRODs where added by an IP & then contested by another IP with no rationale given (apart from 1 occasion where they removed with comment "stop vandalising"). ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 05:37, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages for the same reason: ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 05:53, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Censorship of Regular Show in Asia Pacific (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Censorship of Regular Show in Australia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Censorship of Regular Show in Latin America (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. 06:17, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. 06:17, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. 06:17, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Asia-related deletion discussions. 06:17, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. 06:17, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Latin America-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 06:17, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment – you may also want to see a similar discussion Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Censorship of Regular Show in the United Kingdom. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 06:17, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all per nomination - this is clearly unencyclopedic trivia Nick-D (talk) 06:32, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all, unsourced OR. Regular Show is popular, but I doubt there are any sources covering just its censorship. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 07:28, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all. Agree with DUCKISJAMMMY (talk · contribs), as well per Nick-D (talk · contribs) and TenPoundHammer (talk · contribs). JJ98 (Talk) 08:22, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all Complete original research, all examples not unusual dialogue and scene edits at all to meet local regulatory concerns and mores (and most of them just change to less-harsh words, very understandable). As I said in the related UK nom, the usual 'some episodes are edited or removed from airing for content in other markets' line added to the main article should satisfy most readers of the RS article. Nate • (chatter) 09:12, 11 January 2013 (UTC)**[reply]
• Delete, non-notable and original research. Note that a category page has been created for all the related articles.TheLongTone (talk) 09:57, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all. 100% based on original research. Firsfron of Ronchester 14:49, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as non-notable. —Ed!^(talk) 15:55, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Snow delete - After some searches, sources seem to be entirely unavailable to even verify information in these articles. Northamerica1000^(talk) 16:36, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all per WP:SNOW. AutomaticStrikeout (T • C) 19:11, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all the very nadir of trivial fancruft. This is so trivial I'm not even sure a fansite would take it. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 21:36, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete all If the information is notable and sourced, it should be in the article Regular Show. Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 23:09, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete all100% WP:OR and not notable, even if it was 100% referenced. As suggested above, it is time for some SNOW clearance. Arjayay (talk) 14:43, 12 January 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. ·Add§hore· ^{Talk To Me!} 16:11, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Bonnie Zindel[edit]

Bonnie Zindel (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 gives the appearance of having sources establishing notability per WP:SIGCOV, but none appear to have any substantial coverage of the subject. The rest are personal profiles, conference attendee rosters, scheduled appearances, and trivial mentions. Was WP:PRODded for deletion but the author (who has a confirmed COI) removed the prod without any explanation or improvement. ~Amatulić (talk) 05:25, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:09, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:09, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:09, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, doesn't meet guidelines for WP:Notability. The references to NY Times articles are passing mentions, not profiles of this article's subject. PKT(alk) 18:47, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, notability case is very borderline (WP:BASIC), and removal of Template:AfD from a page during a discussion (see Bonnie Zindel: Difference between revisions) does not give confidence in the case for retention.—Baldy Bill (talk) 20:48, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just noticed a page with this title was also deleted on 4 June 2009 on notability grounds.—Baldy Bill (talk) 20:53, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • The deleted article was on the same person, but much less detailed (basically only what is now the "Personal" section of the article). —David Eppstein (talk) 21:16, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Thanks for clarification David. Baldy Bill (talk) 23:11, 17 January 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. ·Add§hore· ^{Talk To Me!} 16:11, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

PixelShips[edit]

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

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

There is no reason that this meets WP:Notability. Jasper Deng (talk) 04:29, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 04:53, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete web content with no notability presented. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 05:08, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as non-notable. —Ed!^(talk) 15:56, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - It's just another amateur/homebrew freeware game that got some distribution on sites like CNET, but failed to attract the sort of coverage required to satisfy WP:GNG. --Mike Agricola (talk) 16:23, 12 January 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 per C7. (non-admin closure) Mkdw^talk 03:47, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Shark In Your Mouth![edit]

Shark In Your Mouth! (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)

Despite the good layout and prose the band has not accomplished some very significant milestones that would assert their notability:

• Not release an album
• Not signed to a record label
• Not won an award to created a hit song
• Have not been the subject of significant coverage

As such they do not meet WP:BAND and WP:BEFORE reveals little outside of Youtube and websites with lyrics. Mkdw^talk 03:22, 11 January 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) Mediran (t • c) 09:39, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nandanavanam 120km[edit]

Nandanavanam 120km (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 to meet notability per WP:FILMNOT. I can only find references comparable to the IMDB. WP:FILMNOT states, "A film's entry in the The Internet Movie Database can provide valuable information, or any other similar databases, including links to reviews, articles, and media references. A page in the database does not by itself establish the film's notability, however." CrimsonBlue (talk) 03:16, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CrimsonBlue (talk) 03:28, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CrimsonBlue (talk) 03:28, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Mentioned in Gooogle News, Telugu One. Since the film is in Telugu, that language's references should be counted too (I can't read the language) --Tito Dutta (talk) 17:54, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

• Keep A released film that has coverage in both English[3] and Telugu language sources. Article and project will benefit form this being improved per available sources, but not by deletion because it has not yet been done. WP:NRVE, WP:IMPERFECT, WP:UGLY, WP:DEADLINE. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 00:29, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep – The article has received significant coverage in the media. To name a few:
  

[4],[5],[6], [7], [8]. As MichaelQSchmidt says, just because the article is poorly written, it shouldn't be deleted. —Vensatry _{(Ping me)} 05:06, 15 January 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) Mediran (t • c) 09:38, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Josef Altin[edit]

Josef Altin (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 WP:BLP cites not one reliable source. A Google search finds no immediately available appropriate sources.  Sandstein  14:29, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment The subject is mentioned in a handful of Guardian theatre reviews, but none of these appear to be major roles; he does also get mentioned in The Independent review of "The Empire" where he had a larger role. AllyD (talk) 21:46, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Yeah, but these are one-sentence passing mentions, not enough by far to base a biographic article on.  Sandstein  02:47, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• I don't disagree: such press mentions help address the basic BLP issue but fall short of demonstrating WP:NACTOR notability. AllyD (talk) 09:06, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:06, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Rather prolific UK television actor. I did a search for his name and Wikipedia came up first. And then I found this deletion discussion. His being cast in Game of Thrones has resulted in its own significant fan base as well. Make an effort to get better sources. There's quite probably industry material out there that's not online. --Bastique ^{☎ call me!} 00:48, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Probably" isn't good enough. If you want to keep the article, you must look for and cite such sources, see WP:BURDEN. Without reliable sources, we must not keep a biography of a living person.  Sandstein  03:14, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to misunderstand what I've typed. I'm not arguing your rationale for the need for reliable sources. I'm not arguing with you at all. I don't even "want" to keep this article. I'm stating a fact that he passes the threshold of being notable and his biography deserves to be on Wikipedia. That means it's worth someone who is an active editor making the effort to look for reliable sources that almost certainly exist. That is also to say that I have no stake in keeping this article, so I don't care what the end result is. I'm not a very active editor any longer in the first place. And I am not going to go through the effort to find it myself. But anyone who discovers this page will know precisely what to do rather than going through the Brobdingnagian task of trying to understand Wikipedia policies or find themselves arguing with you when they don't have to. --Bastique ^{☎ call me!} 04:22, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep basic notability per the guideline WP:NACTOR, 48 roles over 14 year career, inculding same roll multiple times over 2 seasons on long term TV series The Bill, then there's pictured. Gnangarra 05:28, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, KTC (talk) 00:25, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Nothing but passing mentions. No indepth coverage of this individual.Curb Chain (talk) 02:37, 4 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, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 00:45, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Even if not a winner, a Screen Actors Guild Awards nomination pushes nicely at WP:ANYBIO. In determining WP:ENT, we do not look only at the very least, but instead at the length of the career, the total work done, and most specially those roles found significant to plot and story of notable projects. So in his prolific career,[9] we can recognize the totality and consider the more significant of those quite many named characters... such as Billy in multiple episodes of Being Human, as Jay Henderson in multiple episodes of The Bill as as Andy 'Mez' McKenzie in multiple episodes of Casualty, as Gary in multiple episodes of Misfits, as Darren in multiple episodes of Him & Her, and as Pypar in multiple episodes of Game of Thrones. The sng WP:ENT does not mandate that the actor be individualy himself the recipient of significant coverage (else that sng would not need to exist in the first place), but instead sets up criteria through which notability might still be asserted and recognized when the GNG is weak... as long as we have verifiability of the actor's work. If we then have dozens of "brief" mentions that confirm various aspects of the article, then fine... we use them. While SIGCOV is wonderful, it is not the sole means by which we can determine if someone is notable enough to be included herein. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 01:34, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Easily notable enough by virtue of the range of verifiable work in TV and West End. Reviews in The Stage and The Independent. Game of Thrones clinches it, but even without that I would keep. Mcewan (talk) 08:34, 15 January 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. Courcelles 00:27, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Rob Trains[edit]

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

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

Not notable, no reliable sources HectorAE (talk) 00:31, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• delete Few ghits all seem to be Wikipedia mirrors or ArtSlant. Ewulp (talk) 05:10, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 15:49, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 15:49, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 15:49, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 15:49, 5 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, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 00:43, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I am not finding any reliable sources. The two quotations in the article are presumably gallery texts in conjunction with exhibitions: they were in the 1980s so it is unsurprising that they cannot be verified online, but both present the subject as up-and-coming and one would therefore really expect to see something firm that is more recent if he is to have any chance of meeting WP:ARTIST. AllyD (talk) 09:57, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Withdrawn. ·Add§hore· ^{Talk To Me!} 01:12, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome- Bazzi mehman nawazi ki[edit]

Welcome- Bazzi mehman nawazi ki (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 speculation per WP:NOTCRYSTALBALL. No assertion of notability per WP:GNG. Nothing about it online in English from WP:Reliable sources. Proposed deletion contested without comment by article's creator. Altered Walter (talk) 14:58, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: No sources. It's also written like a promo. —Prof. Squirrel (talk) 15:14, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:41, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:41, 29 December 2012 (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 01:36, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep This source, already listed in the article, seems a pretty good indication that the show will appear on Indian television soon. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 14:16, 4 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, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 00:43, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Official Website - Considering Come Dine With Me is a popular UK show, this Indian variant should have a page as well. Also I would like to move the article for title misspelling and then will attempt to improve the quality and sources after the move. Welcome - Baazi Mehmaan-Nawaazi ki The new title I am proposing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mjhtcarfan (talk • contribs) 16:27, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Proposed deletion withdrawn: there's now sufficient coverage online from WP:Reliable sources. Altered Walter (talk) 16:45, 17 January 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 Communist Party of Great Britain. ·Add§hore· ^{Talk To Me!} 03:26, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Tankie[edit]

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

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

The term exists, and the article was recently improved significantly but it clearly has too many issues of original research. It belongs in wikitionary at best. In addition, the term is also used to describe members of certain british military unit - furthering the issue of it being a definition rather than an encyclopedic term. Cerejota (talk) 00:15, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• wiktionary. Nonnotable slang. Staszek Lem (talk) 01:30, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and perhaps Wiktionary if they'll have it. The term is also slang for members of the tank regiment. It's not notable and the references in the article are hopeless. Chiswick Chap (talk) 11:18, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 15:33, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 15:33, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 15:33, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Transwikify -- This is little beyond a glorified dictionary definition. Peterkingiron (talk) 22:00, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect & Merge into the article Communist Party of Great Britain. Given that there are reliable sources that verify the term; and it is an alternate name of a faction of individuals within the Communist Party of Great Britain, I therefore support merger of verified content into an appropriate section of the Communist Party of Great Britain article, and a redirect left in the article's space.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 18:58, 6 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, -- Cheers, Riley 00:38, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete The crisis in the CPGB over the 1956 intervention in Hungary, and subsequent events, is only sketchily referred to in the main article and is notable enough for an article in its own right. But this is not the way to do it. A redirect to Communist Party of Great Britain would, though, be wrong. As pointed out, the primary meaning of Tankie is in reference to a tank crew - eg in a current BBC programme. That was the whole point of the usage in the CPGB (for those too young to remember, the use of Warsaw Pact tanks against counter-revolutionary elements characterised the interventions in Hungary and Czechoslovakia in particular). --AJHingston (talk) 11:47, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It does appear that the term has multiple usages, one that is primary the Tank Crew mention, and the other that is a term for members of the CPGB. Perhaps the best solution then would be to redirect the term to Tank#Crew and leave a hatnote there regarding the verified usage of the term for members of the CPGB.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 21:04, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to Communist Party of Great Britain in reduced form; this is about one aspect of that group's history.  Sandstein  08:29, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• I will also go with that merge. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Peterkingiron (talk • contribs) 14:51, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedily deleted by User:Jimfbleak under criterion A7 with additional comment "Essay, original research, no verifiable sources". (Non-admin closure) "Pepper" @ 16:54, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Measurement data intelligence (MDI)[edit]

Measurement data intelligence (MDI) (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 not notable when it was speedied on Dec 20, 2012 (see also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Measurement Data Intelligence (MDI)), nor when it was speedied on Jan 9, 2013 (with edit summary of "(A7: No explanation of the subject's significance (real person, animal, organization, or web content): essay, OR, no sources, no more notable than when it was deleted under title Measurement Data Intelligence (MDI) in Dec 2012.)").

No refs. No GHits. No GNews/Books/Scholar.

Creator has a username that indicates it may represent a business or organization.

Recommend salting both titles to prevent endless recreations. GregJackP Boomer! 00:34, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 04:20, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 04:20, 11 January 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. MBisanz ^talk 04:47, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

SMS addiction (neé Textaholism)[edit]

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

Article is nothing more than a dictionary definition of a neologism. Perhaps it should be transwikied to wiktionary? Bensci54 (talk) 22:39, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• yes, the first sentence is nothing but a dictionary definition of a neologism. that's an astute observation. now if you continue reading you'll notice that there is actually an article here that follows including several points that have no place in a dictionary. that's why we have encyclopedias. thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mikewax (talk • contribs) 02:09, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Delete - I'm sure this could be turned into a decent article, but as of now the citations are terrible and the content and grammar are even worse. Mrmoustache14 (talk) 03:19, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• that's a shame --Mikewax (talk) 02:30, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• An article sourced to Urban Dictionary, YouTube, MTV, and Yahoo Answers isn't exactly a paragon of reliable content. This bad sourcing is no doubt caused by the use of the wrong name for the subject. Its actual name, from which one will find proper literature on the subject, is SMS addiction. Uncle G (talk) 05:08, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • thats a good point but when i put up the same article with the title SMS adiction it was immediately deleted. --Mikewax (talk) 02:30, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • That's because you didn't use the page rename tool, as you should have done. Uncle G (talk) 17:35, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete no RS. Arbitrary distinctions of what determines this "condition". OR. -Drdisque (talk) 18:15, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 12:44, 5 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 00:26, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Poor article! I could find no concrete evidence that this condition exists. Colinwhitehouse (talk) 11:53, 12 January 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) Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 03:13, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Veta La Palma[edit]

Veta La Palma (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)

Promotional article about a non-notable organisation. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 19:53, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Keep. The Time article already in the article as an external link is substantial coverage from a reliable source, as (so far as I can judge) is this article from El Mundo. And there are plenty of other GNews hits, though it probably needs someone with better Spanish than I have to sort out which of them are reliable. The article is definitely rather over-promotional at the moment, and badly needs in-line citations but, when the subject is notable, these are editing issues, not reasons for deletion. PWilkinson (talk) 15:39, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:21, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:21, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:21, 29 December 2012 (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 01:10, 4 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, -- Cheers, Riley 00:24, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: Nontrivial coverage in Time Magazine, El Mundo, and Al-Jazeera alone is enough to satisfy WP:CORPDEPTH, which states that "[e]vidence of attention by international or national [...] media is a strong indication of notability". Seems also to have been discussed (albeit briefly, and usually as the site of an investigation) in several books, e. g., 1, 2, and numerous scholarly articles, e. g., 1, 2, 3. Alexrexpvt (talk) 05:06, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Passes WP:CORPDEPTH. For starters, see [10], [11], [12]. Northamerica1000^(talk) 17:27, 11 January 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. KTC (talk) 01:07, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Accelerated orthodontic treatment[edit]

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

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

The entire article is a mess and is written in an unencyclopedic way. Not notable with no reliable sources. Satellizer ^{talk contribs} 01:09, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 16:05, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - I've cleaned it up. There were 2 sources. It needs still needs expansion though.--Auric Talk 14:01, 6 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, -- Cheers, Riley 00:23, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - scholar.google.com and Google books show that the topic meets wp:N. As for the wp:NOT issues (mess and is written in an unencyclopedic way), I cleaned up the article a little more. -- Jreferee (talk) 09:20, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. postdlf (talk) 17:32, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Censorship of Regular Show in the United Kingdom[edit]

Censorship of Regular Show in the United Kingdom (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)

Prodded once but template was removed with no reason given. It was prodded again but I removed it as you can't PROD an article twice. Taking to AfD for the same reasons as the initial one though, "This is completely unreferenced original research and does not pass WP:GNG". Del_♉sion23 (talk) 00:19, 11 January 2013 (UTC) In fact, everything in and including this category should probably be deleted seperately too. Del_♉sion23 (talk) 00:22, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Not unusual edits at all, UK shows have regular self-edits (and even missing episodes) of American shows to meet basic content regulations, and to be clear, these are edits made locally by the network itself to meet UK standards, not made by a government agency. Not only OR, but definite fancruft, and this can easily be covered by the usual 'some episodes are edited or removed from airing for content in other markets' line in the main article. If the prods are removed on other shows in the Regular Show Censorship category, feel free to put them up here too, along with Censorship of The Amazing World of Gumball in Australia; not a source to be found among any of them (though judging from the creator having profanities in his signature this is going to be a tough nom). Nate • (chatter) 03:17, 11 January 2013 (UTC) (rationale changed to emphasize editing is self-regulation, not 'censorship' by any government agency)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 04:14, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 04:14, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 04:14, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per Mrschimpf (talk · contribs). Lacks inline citations. JJ98 (Talk) 05:17, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment – you may also want to see a similar discussion Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Censorship of Regular Show in Canada. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 06:26, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete article on a non-notable subject based on original reasearch. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Censorship of The Amazing World of Gumball in the United States.TheLongTone (talk) 09:52, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - This is approaching the "patent nonsense" level of a G1 speedy delete. Reading through this and other contributions by this user, we're getting into some WP:COMPETENCE territory, a rambling essay about a tv show that subs out naughty words for broadcast isn't really a notable situation. Tarc (talk) 14:13, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all. 100% based on original research. Firsfron of Ronchester 14:50, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Snow delete - After some searches, sources seem to be entirely unavailable to even verify information in this article. Northamerica1000^(talk) 16:34, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete same reason as the rest of them. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 22:44, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete If the information is notable and sourced, it should be in the article Regular Show. Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 23:13, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all 100% WP:OR and not notable, even if it was 100% referenced. As suggested above, it is time for some SNOW clearance. Arjayay (talk) 14:51, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Possibly it's arisen from here, but still non-notable cruft.--A bit iffy (talk) 14:57, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete This is NN WP:OR. In UK we have standards as to the language that can be used before a 9 pm watershed. The article appears to be objecting to editorical changes to make the programme suitable to UK audience and UK standards. That is not censorship, it is editing. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:57, 13 January 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. Courcelles 00:47, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ontoforce[edit]

Ontoforce (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 startup company doesn't appear notable per WP:CORP. Only claim of notability in article is "second place in Vacature magazine’s top 10 of young Flemish technology companies", which I don't think is enough. NawlinWiki (talk) 16:20, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is indeed a startup. They deserve a place on Wikipedia imho because I believe in their ideas. Do you have tips to make sure this page won't be deleted? Zofie_be (talk) 17:42, 3 January 2013

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 15:18, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 15:18, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 15:18, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 15:18, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Belgium-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 15:18, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Non-notable per WP:CORP and WP:GNG - third-party coverage is shallow at best. -- Scray (talk) 01:00, 7 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 00:17, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: NOBLE is not a criterion for inclusion. הסרפד (call me Hasirpad) (formerly R——bo) 00:27, 11 January 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 2013 in sports. Courcelles 00:50, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

International sports calendar 2013[edit]

International sports calendar 2013 (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)

Creation after the decision to merge te article International sports calendar 2012 into 2012 in sports. The user creating this new article is perfectly aware of that decision, as he participated in the previous discussion (as I did also). - Nabla (talk) 23:11, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:52, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:52, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep WP:CCC + the formatting here is different and tackles the issue in the last one that it was messy. It is now more easily organised. Despise OSE, see the various political leders "by tenure"/"by..." Likewise, this is chronological reference, while the other is "by sport". This is also more organised than that as it lists more data like the winnersLihaas (talk) 02:53, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]