< 13 July	15 July >

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

The result was redirect to The Ultimate Fighter: Brazil 2. postdlf (talk) 17:41, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Luis Dutra Jr.[edit]

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

This article is about an MMA fighter who fails WP:NMMA because he has none of the three top tier fights required for notability and he also lacks significant independent coverage in reliable sources. I actually just want to Redirect to The Ultimate Fighter: Brazil 2. I attempted to be bold and do that, with a comment saying he didn't meet the criteria for individual notability, but another user disagreed so I thought I'd bring it here for discussion. Papaursa (talk) 21:50, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Papaursa (talk) 21:50, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Redirect Nothing to show this fighter meets any notability criteria on his own.Mdtemp (talk) 17:29, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to The Ultimate Fighter: Brazil 2 — Has some history in the Brazilian promotions and was doing good on TUF Brazil 2 until getting injured, but fails WP:NMMA and seems to fail WP:GNG. Poison Whiskey 18:41, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to The Ultimate Fighter: Brazil 2 - Per above. Luchuslu (talk) 13:53, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Closed with no prejudice against speedy renomination. Too few people have participated in the discussion for a rough consensus to emerge. (non-admin closure) Michaelzeng7 (talk) 22:08, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Tom Crabtree (journalist)[edit]

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

A news journalist in South Carolina. Nothing that make anything notable. I could not find any good, reliable sources for this article. WisconsinBoyClevelandRocks228844 (talk) 01:58, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Carolina-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:32, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:32, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:32, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:32, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

~~Comment~~. Keep. Seems to be substantial coverage under Tom Crabtree anchor, but mostly local stuff. Thirty-eight years as a SC journalist would weight my opinion toward a keep outcome, when well documented. This critique of Scott Pelley is interesting. Accolades like "former SC Newsman of the year" and regional Emmy wins for his news broadcasts, if verifiable, would put this subject past WP:CREATIVE (under 4c), IMHO. BusterD (talk) 03:46, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Tom Crabtree may be a news anchor like Scott Pelley, but the difference is, Crabtree is a local news anchor while Pelley is a national news anchor. WisconsinBoyClevelandRocks228844 (talk) 15:46, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The critique of Scott Pelley is written BY the subject, and covered in a full length book about media critique. BusterD (talk) 03:56, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 03:10, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Surely if Crabtree wins a notable award, he would be on the notability guidelines. As if I were sitting currently, I probably won't know on what to do wit the article. WisconsinBoyClevelandRocks228844 (talk) 19:51, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, WikiPuppies _bark ^dig 21:28, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your nomination already counts as your delete !vote. BusterD (talk) 13:55, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Secret ^account 03:57, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Jonathan Costa[edit]

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

Selfpromo (Gibwork is owned by Costa) and fails WP:GNG The Banner talk 20:44, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:56, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:57, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The page could have been deleted speedily (WP:CSD#A7), but this discussion gives a new editor a chance to learn and perhaps contribute more usefully. – Fayenatic London 07:55, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Vanity article with no relable secondary sources.--Rollins83 (talk) 20:58, 15 July 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. L Faraone 04:57, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Night Gallery (Los Angeles)[edit]

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

advertisement and seems to fail WP:GNG as most Google links I have checked were about the exhibitions, not about the gallery The Banner talk 20:40, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:56, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:57, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:57, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The AfC for this was approved by a known sockpuppet, created to approve the master's promotional AfCs DGG ( talk ) 04:32, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No significant coverage in reliable sources. Reads like a promotional piece, so it probably is a duck (or written by one anyway). -Wine Guy~Talk 20:58, 22 July 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) 17:41, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hundred years of indian cinema[edit]

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

Rehash of Cinema of India written in a somewhat inappropriate tone. Jamesx12345 (talk) 19:41, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 20:14, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 20:14, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Redundant to Cinema of India, and very essay-like. DoctorKubla (talk) 20:46, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No strong enough reason...

I can't understand that there is no strong enough resion that this script should be deleted. That's why it should not be deleted. else you are experienced and as you wish. Mala chaubey (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 10:40, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. If there is any info in it that isn't in Cinema of India then that could be merged into the later article. MarnetteD | Talk 18:53, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This is the cinema of India, but written as an essay; duplicates and existing topic. -- Whpq (talk) 20:24, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This article should not be deleted. I was surprised that it didn't come in the news at Main Page. Bollywood is the largest cinema of the world. I don't think above reason is sufficient to delete this article.☆★Sanjeev Kumar (talk) 04:48, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Have you looked at the Cinema of India article? Everything that is in the "100 years" article is covered in this one and it is written in a proper manner. IMO there is no need to have two articles on the same subject. MarnetteD | Talk 05:03, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

So it should be merged with Cinema of India.☆★Sanjeev Kumar (talk) 09:15, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What do you think should be merged? -- Whpq (talk) 11:50, 17 July 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. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 20:48, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

David Gutierrez Arvidsson[edit]

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

Prodded by another user with rationale "This player has not played any matches in a fully professional league; please read Wikipedia:NFOOTBALL!" However, prod was not formed correctly. Listing at AFD to gather consensus. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 18:53, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not enough in-depth coverage to indicate notability. DoctorKubla (talk) 20:55, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:54, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:54, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:54, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:54, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:54, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nom. He has not played in a fully pro league or received significant coverage, meaning the article fails WP:NSPORT and WP:GNG. Sir Sputnik (talk) 13:20, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails both WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 11:12, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List of years in film. postdlf (talk) 17:41, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

2018 in film[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

None of these films are notable yet and only one of them is named. Way too soon. Beerest355 Talk 17:08, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of years in film and lock until something more certain is announced. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 17:29, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect but use hidden text suggesting against page recreation rather than a lock. 2017 in film can probably go too. Reatlas (talk) 05:49, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:45, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect and lock per Lugnuts; Untitled Disney projects and Spiderman project that depends on 2 and 3 doing well and the cast staying together/alive do not a year in film article make. Nate • (chatter) 05:43, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect or delete This is ridiculously speculative and subject to change. There's also virtually no info - so Disney are releasing a film in 2018? Probably they are, but they're as capable as anyone of changing release dates for technical or commercial reasons (e.g. John Carter was brought forward 3 months, the upcoming Planes was pushed back 6 months). --Colapeninsula (talk) 10:13, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Redirect to something else: Perfect example of Wikipedia:TenPoundHammer's Law. The so-called sources for the items show just how lacking in any WP:RS this subject (film releases years in advance) are. The direct references are to blog-like news sites that list things like "Source: Sony / Columbia Pictures" with no links for proof. Even if there was a direct studio source: Hollywood claims for things 5 years in advance are possibly even less reliable than educated guesses by media critics; they're "leaked" to manipulate someone else in the industry — maybe mass media, maybe just some individuals — with no relation to whether it will actually happen. Even if the proposals are verified to be "official" somehow, it will end up being the Ship of Theseus by the time 2018 rolls around. The chances of any article made in 2013 having any relation to film reality in 2018 is about zero, and Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, and article space is not the place for rough drafts of an article that can't be reliable yet. --Closeapple (talk) 02:53, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. I had created the original article, but after that was deleted, I recreated the page as a redirect (because many even later years were already redirects). Considering the only addition since the last time it was deleted is the Spider-Man movie, it probably should remain a redirect. However, there would be some other untitled films that could be added - Fox announced five for 2018. See http://www.slashfilm.com/fox-dates-frankenstein-alvin-and-the-chipmunks-4-and-animated-films-through-2018/ Alphius (talk) 21:51, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - bad crystalball. -- cyclopia^speak! 09:09, 19 July 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. L Faraone 00:57, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Shree Ganesh Jewellery House[edit]

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

Lacks reliable independent secondary sources to establish notability as required by WP:GNG or WP:CORP. Sources offered are all WP:PRIMARY or trivial coverage of the company's press release or the investment prospects and thus unsuitable for establishing notability. Googling turns up nothing suitable. Msnicki (talk) 15:47, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep ...unless you're saying the Business Standard news source isn't a reliable independent secondary source. There are several lengthy articles published between 2010 and 2013 already cited in the article. Sionk (talk) 16:11, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

These articles are WP:ROUTINE coverage of the company's press releases and not suitable for establishing notability. Msnicki (talk) 16:36, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's why press releases are released to the press, isn't it?! This isn't PRNewswire, it's a major Indian news publication. What would you expect the coverage to be about, other than the activities of the company? Sounds more like an IDONTLIKEIT, or ITSNOTAMERICAN argument to me. Sionk (talk) 16:47, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please refer to the guidelines at WP:CORPDEPTH. It's trivial coverage of the company's press releases. I propose we focus on having a guidelines-based discussion. There's no need for uncivil and unfounded charges of bias. Msnicki (talk) 17:04, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, of the three Business Standard sources, one is a press release, two are substantial articles. In my view that meets the very minimum standards for notability. They're not trivial and they're not press releases and they're published in a reliable national news source. The company is floated in the national stock exchange, all these things pointed towards it being notable, IMO, when I moved it from AfC. Sionk (talk) 17:38, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The only real information is basically investor information, nothing to make the company notable. Jtowler (talk) 20:19, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I don't understand the nom's argument. Only one of the cited articles is a press release; most of them are non-trivial and independent, and therefore can be used to establish notability. And there are plenty more sources online, for example [1], [2], [3] from the first page of Google News results. DoctorKubla (talk) 21:14, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

All three of your cites are routine coverage of the company's press releases. Msnicki (talk) 23:20, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You've repeated that several times, including in your opening arguments. Why not stand back and let others have their opinion? Sionk (talk) 23:29, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Referring to your original complaint before you edited it, that I hadn't provided evidence these are routine coverage of their press releases, you're supposed to read them and notice clues like, "Nilesh Parekh, chairman, Shree Ganesh Jewellery House, said", in the first cite, "according to a press statement issued by Ganesh Jewellery House" in the second, and "said Nilesh Parekh, chairman of Shree Ganesh Jewellery House" in the third. I haven't stopped anyone from having any opinion they want. Msnicki (talk) 23:46, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:41, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:42, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep In my opinion the article must not be removed as there are plenty of reliable independent secondary sources to establish its notability as required by WP. The news in Moneycontrol.com which is India’s No. 1 Financial Portal and the news in Business Standard sounds its suitability for establishing notability. The company has several times received awards for outstanding Export Performance from Gems and Jewellery Export Promotion Council (GJEPC). The company has also received the “Four Star Export House” certificate from the Joint Director of Foreign Trade, Government of India in June 2009. — Anna570108 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 18:23, 19 July 2013 (UTC).[reply]

The moneycontrol.com article is just investor information. It possibly meets the description of a profile as described in WP:LISTED but it's still only a single questionable source you could probably find on any listed stock if you looked hard enough. This is WP:Run-of-the-mill. Msnicki (talk) 21:22, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. For one thing The Economic Times ("the world's second-most widely read English-language business newspaper, after the Wall Street Journal") ranks this company at #103 on their list of the top 500 companies in India, with revenues around $1.5 Billion. It is a publicly traded company, "sufficient independent sources almost always exist for such companies," (see WP:LISTED). There are at least 8 pages of Google news hits, yes some of them are trivial or reprints of press releases, but many are references to reliable, independent news sources doing their due diligence in reporting on the finances of a major, notable, public company. The refs I found (quite quickly) are too numerous to list here, and I was just looking at English language sources covering a multinational corporation in an area of the world where English is not the predominant language. -Wine Guy~Talk 21:48, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets WP:LISTED. Miniapolis 17:40, 25 July 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. Nomination withdrawn with no outstanding delete votes. (non-admin closure) • Gene93k (talk) 01:37, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ahaan[edit]

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

Article fails WP:NFF. Author removed Prod. Ochiwar (talk) 14:55, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn by nominator. Reference is reliable. Ochiwar (talk) 20:55, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. I recommend continuing to work on improving the sourcing (or the article may be renominated), or discussing any possible merger on the talk page. Sandstein 06:31, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Harry Giese[edit]

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

Only sourced to IMDB and similar quality sites. Casual investigation does not show substantial coverage. L Faraone 18:45, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:16, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:16, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dusti^*poke* 03:20, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I have no view about this person, but I wish to point out that those searching may find a Harry Giese who was the Commonwealth of Australia Protector of Aborigonal people in the Northern Territory of Australia. He may well justify an article as he was noted frequently in newspapers of the period. His wife, Nan Guise, well out-lived him, and may also justify an article as she was Chancellor of the Northern Territory University (see http://www.territorystories.nt.gov.au/handle/10070/218077). --Bduke (Discussion) 04:20, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Selective merge. The lede states strong reasons for notability, as a regular narrator (one of two, though the article does not state this) for Die Deutsche Wochenschau throughout its existence from 1940 to 1945 and as the narrator for The Eternal Jew (1940 film) - he is currently mentioned in both articles, even though neither mentions his connection with the other. Although the sourcing currently given in the article is unreliable in Wikipedia terms, the standard GBooks search shows that each of these can be verified from several different reliable sources, though none of the mentions seem to be more than two or three sentences long. This is quite enough to mean that people might see one of these mentions and then look on Wikipedia for further information. However, the rest of the article is problematic - the entire article is an unacknowledged translation of the corresponding article on German Wikipedia (in itself an easily correctable problem), whose entire Leben section (the Career section in this article) seems to have been more or less copied from this web page (not an easily correctable problem). Unless more detailed reliable sources can be found and used in the article, the best option seems to be to turn the article into a redirect to either Die Deutsche Wochenschau or The Eternal Jew (1940 film), adding a brief mention in the target article to his connection with the other. By the way, the Australian official mentioned by User:Bduke seems to meet WP:GNG far more clearly than this Harry Giese - if anyone chooses to write an article on his rather controversial career, then that article should take the Harry Giese title, with a hatnote for the subject of this article. PWilkinson (talk) 23:55, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Query. 123

I just wanna know he did with his time from 1962 to his demise in 1991, that's 29 years of unknown activity, presumably being unemployed and supported by his wife. Failed career and failed presumably orchid ambition so he stayed home and died like a good little Nazi. I gave 3 fiddy for that joke. #DrakeSaul 321 12:17, 12 July 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.92.193.63 (talk)

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:19, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Passes WP:NACTOR with significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions. On a quick search I can't find any lengthy coverage, but there are plenty of sources that confirm his importance. Here he is described as an acoustic symbol of the German state, here he is the great German voice of Nazi propaganda, we find out in this book that he was a football commentator, this one tells us that his voice was so familiar to Germans that his narration of The Eternal Jew would create a sense of intimacy with its viewers and here we learn that he was a favourite of Hitler. In the 1930s and 1940s the newsreel was a major news medium, so one of the two main narrators would be the equivalent of a top TV news presenter today. Phil Bridger (talk) 16:39, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The references you cite, Phil (one line, part of a footnote, for instance) add little to the already thin source material on the voice actor, beyond the much-repeated fact that he was a commentator in propaganda films in Germany during World War II. He seems a very small fish in the murky ocean of Nazism. A literal translation of the original Wikipedia article noted that his death would be of little interest to the German public. But the article unleashed links to the vast amount of online material on Nazi newsreels and nasty racist films, and smeared by association the thousands of other people worldwide who share the actor's surname but not his views. They include the Australian public servant Harry Giese, Heinrich Giese, three Harold Gieses and two Henry Gieses in the United States (for example). The newsreel material is already very prominent on the Web, and linking it to one obscure, singled-out individual is an insult to professionals in science, medicine and welfare who have different life philosophies and who are hurt by association with gangsters and murderers. User:CleanCorner ([User talk:CleanCorner/talk]]) 08:57, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Secret ^account 03:59, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sharif Majzub[edit]

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

This biographical article cites only one source, [4], but that source does not actually mention this person. Nor is there any indication here of what era the person lived in. Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:23, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

^ http://books.google.com/books?id=fEs9AAAAMAAJ ^ [The Islamic path: sufism, society, and politics in India, Saiyid Zaheer Husain Jafri, Helmut Reifeld - 2006 ] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.192.159.213 (talk) 18:50, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:28, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:51, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:51, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar · · 05:54, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nom. I've found nothing in Arabic and Persian.Farhikht (talk) 14:21, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:15, 14 July 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) 17:40, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

List of The Cleveland Show voice actors[edit]

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

A very trivial cast list for a short-lived TV series. Information is already available at the characters list, as such, this list is pointless. Beerest355 Talk 23:48, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:11, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:11, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:12, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect This list should be part of the main show page or on the character list. There is never a need to split off the voice actor cast separate from the characters they play. --MASEM (t) 00:40, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Michaelzeng7 (talk) 13:09, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Michaelzeng7 (talk) 14:03, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, already listed on the main page. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 18:59, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, duplication of informations. Cavarrone 06:01, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There already is enough info on the main page. Koala15 (talk) 19:25, 19 July 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) 20:53, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Marcus Brinkmann[edit]

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

Lacks reliable independent secondary sources -- or for that matter, any sources at all -- to establish notability as required by WP:GNG. Googling suggests they don't exist. Msnicki (talk) 14:35, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:45, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:45, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:45, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:46, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not notable (yet). Even German-language sources might show notability but does not seem to be on the German Wikipedia either? W Nowicki (talk) 21:15, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete surprised the article lasted this long Agathoclea (talk) 16:57, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Important contributor to the open source community. These guys are not very good at promoting one another. There are a lot less deserving people here. I got here because I was specifically searching for him in his capacity as a public person. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DeepNorth (talk • contribs) 19:43, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Michaelzeng7 (talk) 14:02, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Secret ^account 04:00, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

OE Classic[edit]

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

This is an unsourced article. I've looked, and aside from some indiscriminate download directory sites, I can't find any good sources, so this fails the general notability guideline and should be deleted. - MrOllie (talk) 13:20, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

delete (advertisement of new, non-notable product) TEDickey (talk) 13:29, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete Definitely an advertisement. SOXROX (talk) 14:18, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:34, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:34, 15 July 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) 17:40, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

YDecode[edit]

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

Basically unsourced - only third party sources are a couple of extremely brief mentions on the FAQ pages for Usenet service providers. I've looked, and aside from some indiscriminate download directory sites, I can't find any good sources, so this fails the general notability guideline and should be deleted. - MrOllie (talk) 13:12, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Reads like an advertisement SOXROX (talk) 14:19, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:31, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:32, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no significant coverage found in reliable sources; appears to fail WP:GNG. Gong show 17:52, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - software article of unclear notability lacking RS references. Search reveals no RS, just download sites and forums. Page was created by an SPA as possibly promotional.Dialectric (talk) 22:51, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy deleted by RHaworth. WP:CSD#G3: A hoax. NAC. Beerest355 Talk 22:59, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

DarkSoul[edit]

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

Article about a fictional character from the juvenile fantasy novels Warriors series. The author of the article stated it is Fan-Made. The last editor deleted this, including all improvement tags and a PROD. No sources given. Ben Ben (talk) 10:31, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I was originally going to suggest that this get redirected to the page for the list of characters, but I can't really find anything to suggest that this character actually exists within the actual Warriors series. If it does exist, it's likely a minor character overall. In other words, not a major character that would merit a mention in the overall article for clans. There are so many characters in the series as a whole that listing each and every clan member in the character page would be a long and exhaustive process. Stuff like this is better suited for fan wikias and the like. For clarification for people coming in, the series currently spans 30 books. This isn't including the guidebooks, manga volumes, short stories, and unreleased novels- which would bring it closer to about 45-50 books overall (still not including the short stories), if I'm calculating correctly. Many of the arcs focus on a new or different clan, so there's no way that Wikipedia could list each character- there are far too many to list here. And that's assuming that this is a character that shows up in the series at all. The only things I can find for this character are things that suggest that this is a fan made character. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 13:38, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Zero independent notability. And if Tokyogirl is right, Wikipedia is not for things made up one day. Michaelzeng7 (talk) 14:07, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Might as well close this now. No attempt is even made at notability. SOXROX (talk) 14:21, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete I have tagged with speedy delete as a hoax: as a reader who is very familiar with the series, I can assure you said character is certainly not notable: because said character does not exist. Bramble claw x 14:51, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Nomination withdrawn. Sources found by User:MichaelQSchmidt are satisfactory, for the most part. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 07:55, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wicked Spring[edit]

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

Appears to fail WP:NFILM and WP:GNG. All a Google search turns up is unreliable sources, primary sources, and trailers. The cast looks to be spectacularly non-notable, the film producer appears to be non-notable, and the film was never shown in theatres. On Rotten Tomatoes, not a single review from any official site is listed - that's enough of an alarm bell by itself. Some promotional waffle fills the article as well. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 10:20, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This article is full of red links and empty of sources. SOXROX (talk) 14:22, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Being full of redlinks or being poorly sourced are not valid reasons for deletion if addressable. (see below). Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 02:33, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment from nominator - It also appears that a third of the article was added by User:Lionheart1864, which is apparently an account with a COI (username is close to that of the publisher of the film.) Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 17:04, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:29, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and fix. Meets WP:NF and WP:GNG. While I can sympathize with the nominator's (otherwise addressable) concerns toward format and sourcing, I do not understand his comment about lack of reliable sources. I was able to quickly find it written of in reliable independent sources New York Times and full length articles in Argus Press (1), Argus Press (2), and Argus Press 93) as well as in Free Lance Star and pay-walled Virginia Pilot Roanoke Times (1) Roanoke Times (2) Roanoke Times (3). Article is currently being fixed.[5] Any additional help would be appreciated. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 07:15, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. postdlf (talk) 17:40, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Consumers' Institute of New Zealand[edit]

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

Appears to fail WP:ORG and WP:GNG, due to the lack of reliable, third-party sources. Tagged as failing GNG for 4 years (!), time to settle this one way or another. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 10:15, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ - I looked for internet references to the organization and its magazine, Consumer. (yes, the magazine title ends with a period). I found only passing references with one exception. The Geek Zone website had a forum at http://www.geekzone.co.nz/forums.asp?forumid=48&topicid=113982 , which is a blog and cannot be used as a reliable source in this discussion. Bill Pollard (talk) 11:17, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. gadfium 23:31, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep ~~Incubate~~ I don't think any real effort has been put into finding sources here. Almost every hit on both books and the web is finding something. Just from reading the snippets I know that the company has existed since 1959 and was publicly funded up until 1988, which by itself proves that the company will be wp:notable once a few good references are documented. The company has published many books. But it is going to take more research, and the article currently fails WP:V. Unscintillating (talk) 01:15, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:27, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Changing from incubate to keep since the WP:V problems in the article no longer rise to the level of WP:Deletion policy. Unscintillating (talk) 00:09, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I added some statements with citations, so now there are some sources. I feel that what I have added demonstrates that the subject of this article has received significant coverage in multiple publications which are independent of the subject, and for that reason, this article meets Wikipedia inclusion criteria and should be kept. However - I work for a sister organization of Consumer NZ - Consumer Reports in the United States. I know nothing about Consumer NZ and actually these kinds of organizations exist in many countries. I have a conflict of interest by Wikipedia community guidelines so the usual practice is for me to declare this when I edit articles which could be promotional and for me to ask other editors to put extra scrutiny on what I do. I actually am employed to share consumer information on Wikipedia - see WP:CONSUMER for some descriptions of what I do. Thanks. Blue Rasberry (talk) 20:06, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as the organisation is sufficiently notable in NZ. Often cited in the national media in regard to consumer issues. Article needs work. NealeFamily (talk) 20:14, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Change my vote from Delete to Keep - With the locating and adding of sources this article now has more to support it than just the organization's website. Bill Pollard (talk) 20:50, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per NealeFamily this organization is well-known within NZ. For example, here is a list of articles mentioning them in the NZ Herald (the country's largest newspaper). Their reports are often the subject of the article, and they are also consulted & quoted in an 'advisory' or 'authority' capacity. This would appear to satisfy WP:ORG. I'll rename the page as well, since it doesn't reflect the current title of the organization. —porges_(talk) 01:50, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the rename. Unscintillating (talk) 00:42, 20 July 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 as a disambiguation page. (non-admin closure) Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 02:34, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Super storm[edit]

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

The article has no purpose except to propose a social media hashtag for Hurricane Sandy. This could have been a megastorm or major storm or any number of superlatives of a storm. This is unnecessary, vanity, scientific gobledygook that adds nothing to the encyclopedia. This reason will nearly match the length of the pathetic article. I suggest we redirect this to Hurricane Sandy. I like to saw logs! (talk) 10:08, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The article's been around since 2006 (so it's not true that it was created in response to Sandy), and it was once slightly less of a stub. But "super storm" is such a vague term, and isn't used all that often in the media, as far as I can tell; if there's any useful information here, it can be better covered in existing articles like cyclone and hurricane. I don't agree with redirecting to Hurricane Sandy, because the term has been used to refer to several other famous storms. DoctorKubla (talk) 21:40, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:26, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:27, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as disambig page. It's an obvious search term and gets about 100 views a day. However, searching shows that sources use the phrase to refer to a severe Geomagnetic storm, as well as to a severe Storm or Tropical cyclone, to the 1993 Storm of the Century (where even the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration used the term), and to Superstorm (film). Essentially, "super storm" is an adjective/noun combination that can mean several different things -- a classic situation where disambiguation is needed. -- 202.124.88.39 (talk) 04:59, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as disambig per above. I note that the recent Typhoon Soulik has also been described as a "super typhoon". Ansh666 20:35, 15 July 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) czar · · 04:37, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Mike Halfacre[edit]

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

No evidence of notability. The most notable is mayor, but without signifiant coverage this does not guarantee notability WP:POLITICIAN. I am One of Many (talk) 06:47, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:54, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:54, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar · · 08:31, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, he was a congressional candidate, a Mayor, and now is in charge of a New Jersey agency. I think more information should be added, and I believe that there should be more meat to the article, but I see no basis for deletion. TravisWoods (talk) 15:40, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete A Google news search doesn't really show much hope. While there's coverage, there's not really significant coverage, unless you count a quote via Fox News. Dusti^{*Let's talk!*} 02:04, 14 July 2013 (UTC) Keep per the below. Thanks for the information User:DavidinNJ :) Dusti^{*Let's talk!*} 23:13, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dusti^{*Let's talk!*}, Try searching under "Michael Halfacre." Initially, I searched under "Mike Halfacre," and found very little, but once I used the name Michael, I found a lot of reliable sources - New York Times, Wall street Journal, Philadelphia Inquirer, Boston Globe, and many more. DavidinNJ (talk) 22:48, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

We should probably consider renaming the article to reflect the more hits for "Michael".--ColonelHenry (talk) 23:02, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

STRONG KEEP article needs improvement, undoubtedly, but this is a public figure whose notability is established by significant independent coverage in New Jersey and regional newspapers (SEE: 109 articles in new jersey papers at nj.com [6])--even National and International press coverage of the Alcoholic Beverage Control Division's recent "Operation Swill" action (SEE: [7], [8], [9], [10]). Meets WP:N, WP:RS (with many more that can be added), and contrary to what the nominator asserts citing WP:POLITICIAN, I think the above links are just the beginning of "significant press coverage" has been written about, in depth, independently in multiple news feature articles, by journalists. This deletion nomination simply does not meet any of the criteria at WP:DEL-REASON. --ColonelHenry (talk) 05:41, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:50, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep This one's tough, but I think it just barely passes the minimum. What clinches it for me is that this article has potential to grow. If the author went back and added a bunch of sourced info right now, I would change my vote to strong keep. SOXROX (talk) 14:25, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@Soxrock24: Seeing how lacking it is and seeing this AfD, I am planning to address this article once I get a few other pressing things out of the way. I was one of two main contributors to the FA Alcohol laws of New Jersey, so I'm rather familiar with Halfacre's work as New Jersey's ABC Director. As the news has commented, he's the first ABC director since 1933 to run the office firmly knowing that Prohibition is over. Rest assured, in the next few weeks this will be a much improved article. --ColonelHenry (talk) 16:05, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And I would definitely support that. SOXROX (talk) 19:05, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep just passes notability guidelines, barely. 069952497a (U-T-C-E) 19:33, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep This article is in need of improvement, not deletion. State cabinet members and the heads of state executive agencies are generally notable. In fact, all 50 states have a category listing cabinet members - Category:State cabinet secretaries of the United States. The WP:BIO standard states that "a person is presumed to be notable if he or she has been the subject of multiple published secondary sources which are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject." Halfacre has had significant coverage in multiple regional and national newspapers, thus easily fulfilling that requirement. Without searching too hard, I found articles on him in the The New York Times, The Wall Street Journal, The Philadelphia Inquirer, and The Boston Globe. DavidinNJ (talk) 22:40, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/15/realestate/15living.html?pagewanted=all

http://blogs.wsj.com/metropolis/2012/03/23/in-new-jersey-drinking-is-on-the-political-agenda/

http://articles.philly.com/2013-05-25/news/39504702_1_dirty-water-businesses-cheap-booze

http://www.boston.com/lifestyle/food/2012/09/13/deena-from-jersey-shore-gets-year-ban-from-bar/auGMRJk6oAuyU6JYSspYbP/story.html

Comment:These articles are not about Halfacre, but they do mention what he has to say. — Preceding unsigned comment added by I am One of Many (talk • contribs) 23:02, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to There Is a Hell, Believe Me I've Seen It. There Is a Heaven, Let's Keep It a Secret. postdlf (talk) 17:42, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Blessed with a Curse[edit]

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

Fails WP:NSONG as the single failed to chart. Insulam Simia (^talk/_contribs) 09:12, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:04, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to There Is a Hell, Believe Me I've Seen It. There Is a Heaven, Let's Keep It a Secret. which is a reasonable place for anyone searching for this to end up. --Michig (talk) 06:20, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:47, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per Michig. This appears to be a non-notable song, which WP:NSONG suggests should redirect to its parent album. Gong show 14:07, 14 July 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) 17:45, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Blackmore machine gun[edit]

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

Another gun article created entirely from a patent, which is a WP:PRIMARY for WP:GNG purposes. I can't find any secondary coverage for it myself. Someone not using his real name (talk) 11:54, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Firearms-related deletion discussions. Someone not using his real name (talk) 11:55, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This is not a notable firearm. Wikipedia and Wiki-mirrors appears to be the only sources of information for this gun. If we allow every firearms patent to have a Wiki page, then we will end up crashing the servers.--RAF910 (talk) 21:53, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- More likely bore the reader to death with a hundred thousand stubs like this and glut the gun navbox templates so bad that they crash web browsers. Someone not using his real name (talk) 22:46, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:43, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete For a specialist weapon such as this I would expect evidence that it was at least trialled for adoption by the armed services of a major power, or some other exceptional reason for considering it as notable. Without reliable sources I do take exception to the use of the present tense in the article; as commented elsewhere there is a world of difference between patent designs, which can be considered 'vapourware', and the physical object, and even in a stub that should be made clear. If the editor knew of an extant example of the gun he should have provided a source, if all he knew of it was the patent he should have made that explicit. Stubs are necessarily short - they should not mislead. I do not object to use of patents for providing details of a design because if the gun had been manufactured in accordance with the patent it might be the best, and possibly only, source for its construction and policy permits that. But it cannot establish notability. --AJHingston (talk) 11:56, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above as failing WP:N. Ansh666 20:37, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. L Faraone 01:00, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Swimming at the 2001 World Aquatics Championships – Men's 4 x 100 metre freestyle relay[edit]

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

I turned this into a redirect nearly three years ago when trying to help reduce the backlog of uncategorized pages. The page has no prose whatsoever and no references, the stats are just spit out without any sort of formatting or even names of the athletes involved. Per Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of statistics I don't believe there is any encyclopedic value in listing the individual places each nation came in in a seperate article when there is already the article Swimming at the 2001 World Aquatics Championships. Without evidence of some sort of critical commentary on this specific event this is doomed never to be anything more than what it is now, even if the formatting issues are fixed. There's just not really anything much to say about it.

So, i was going to use proposed deletion, but upon looking a little deeper I found that there are several of these sub-articles that are basically nothing but lists of stats, which is not surprising because the only sources used to construct them were... wait for it... lists of stats. I will therefore be bundling them all into this nomination so that the community can decide if we should have these articles at all. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:04, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And here comes the rest of them:

As you can see the articles (with the exception of the first one that is unsourced and unformatted at this time) are virtually identical and rely on the same two sources which offer no commentary upon which to base an article. I think citing these sources at the parent article is sufficient, those wanting this level of detail for these results can go there and find it. I explicitly am not advocating merging them (although I would not object to redirecting them all to the parent article without merging) as I don't believe we should have long lists of sports (or any other) statistics. A stats table does not an encyclopedia article make, and as there seems little to nothing more to say about these events we should not have these articles at all, instead summarizing the entire main event as is already done at the parent article. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:18, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:24, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep These articles are common in Wikipedia and just haven't been expanded yet. User:Bwilkins actually tried to do this exact thing (except with his admin powers without any input), but the majority of the community was against such actions and his mass deletions were reversed. Look at Athletics at the 2012 Summer Olympics or Swimming at the 2012 Summer Olympics. Every single event has a respective article (and they look better admittedly), but these articles will get there some day with work. At the moment, these articles can be looked at as stubs. Philipmj24 (talk) 22:52, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete There's no need for an individual article for any of these - they all belong in one single article about the championships that year. They should have stayed deleted the first time - the only reason they were restored was basically the equivalent of a WP:REFUND request at ANI. There's been plenty of time to try and improve these articles and it clearly cannot be done. As such, they're invalid WP:CFORK from one main article (✉→BWilkins←✎) 23:18, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I hardly think pages such as Swimming at the 2012 Summer Olympics – Men's 100 metre freestyle or Swimming at the 2008 Summer Olympics – Men's 100 metre butterfly are "CFORK" from one article. Of course, that rash thinking is what led to that incident in the first place. Philipmj24 (talk) 23:27, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the first only: while precedent (the other World Aquatics Championships from 1998 on) suggests we should have them, someone seems to have forgotten about this one from 2001 - the article isn't up to standard, and there's no indication that it'll be improved. Ansh666 23:24, 26 June 2013 (UTC) Keep all now that they've been improved. Ansh666 21:47, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Like I said above, they can be thought of as stubs that require expansion. Just because they haven't been worked on isn't a reason to delete as stubs are common on Wikipedia. Philipmj24 (talk) 23:29, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I updated my comment; I stupidly didn't look at the rest of the articles before writing. Ansh666 23:29, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not buying the idea that they are just stubs that could be expanded. Expanded with what? As I mentioned in the nomination (I know, it was super long) the only sources are lists of stats. Unless there are other sources out there that have yet to be revealed, they literally cannot be expanded beyond their present state. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:44, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

My argument is one of consistency (WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, if you will) - articles of this sort exist for all other World Aquatics Championships since 1998, as well as other competitions such as the Olympics. If you think this is indiscriminate, then every single article of this sort is indiscriminate, and should be deleted? Ansh666 23:54, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Beeblebrox, look at the two examples I listed above. Although they are far from it, they have the potential of being those types of articles. And yes, precedent is important. If we were to use your argument to delete those pages, what's stopping us from deleting possibly thousands of articles ranging from the World Championships to the Olympic Games? Philipmj24 (talk) 00:03, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) (although it still applies as answer to this post as well) While we aren't debating that wider issue here, yes, I believe all articles like this, with no hope of ever being anything beyond a list of statistics, should be deleted. As I mentioned in the nom Wikipedia is explicitly not meant to be a collection of statistics: "To provide encyclopedic value, data should be put in context with explanations referenced to independent sources" Beeblebrox (talk) 00:05, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

User:Beeblebrox - look at the TFA: it's one of these sorts of articles (Cycling at the 2008 Summer Olympics – Women's road race). This is the potential of one of these - while obviously these aren't quite there yet, who's to say they someday won't? The basic notability of several in this bunch have been shown through improving the articles themselves, and I'm sure there's a lot more that can be found. Ansh666 21:45, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I think this was a race where some notable things hapened. The famous Thorpedo swam his then fastest leg to repeat the famous victory over the USA's team that they'd done at the Olympics in Sydney the previous year. The US were also disqualified after the race which was notable and the Dutch set a European Record. I have added a ref. (Msrasnw (talk) 00:30, 27 June 2013 (UTC))[reply]

To add, in the 1500 metre race at the 2001 World Aquatics Championships, Hackett smashed the world record that stood until 2011. In the 400 metre race, Thorpe also broke the world record. These are definitely notable events (in which you can find sources) which have the potential for expansion, not just a "a collection of statistics". Philipmj24 (talk) 00:59, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is a deletion discussion. Speaking hypothetically about the possibility of finding sources doesn't cut it. If you have got something better than just lists of stats, kindly share it with us. I've just looked at the articles you mention and the records you claim were broken. Unfortunately, the source used for those articles does not appear to make any mention of records, being again, just a list of finiishing times. So, either you got that information from some other source which for some reason you will not reveal or you are engaging in original research. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:30, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've added commentary and references to the articles mentioned above and the 200 butterfly article. As for the other ones, you can either delete them or wait until someone else expands on them. I reiterate, these articles can be look at as stubs (which for some reason you don't believe) that have the potential for expansion. These are not just a collection of statistics. I'm not sure why you're a mission to delete these articles, but I hope they can survive. Philipmj24 (talk) 19:14, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all. These are more than adaquitely covered on the pages of the athletes concerned. The newly-added references do not cover the race in detail, they cover the performances of particular athletes (the winners and/or the local athlete as the case may be). Stuartyeates (talk) 21:31, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What about heats? How did they qualify for the final? Or splits of the particular relays? The main page only covers the first three places, but what about everyone else? Do they warrant a mention? As for the races and references, we aren't trying to go for specifics, but for notability. Philipmj24 (talk) 21:40, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Swimming at the 2001 World Aquatics Championships – Men's 4 x 100 metre freestyle relay now has text and references indicating to my mind sufficient notability. More work is needed but deletion would to my mind not help improve our encyclopedia. Brief stubs such as these were seem useful for starting articles such as these are now becoming. (Msrasnw (talk))

So has Swimming at the 2001 World Aquatics Championships – Men's 400 metre freestyle, Swimming at the 2001 World Aquatics Championships – Men's 1500 metre freestyle, and Swimming at the 2001 World Aquatics Championships – Men's 200 metre butterfly. 146.7.113.41 (talk) 18:19, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This Article is a stub anyway, so if the topic is well covered in the respective athletes' Articles, I don't see what difference it makes to have this Article. The Mysterious El Willstro (talk) 14:12, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Question: in what way is this topic well covered in the respective athletes' articles? (Msrasnw (talk) 14:20, 4 July 2013 (UTC))[reply]

As someone pointed out above, we are going for notability, not specifics. There are plenty of Websites other than Wikipedia devoted to covering every heat of every race. Let those Websites carry out their mission and Wiki carry out its own. That said, the respective athletes' Articles would have their medal records with dates and names of tournaments and events. The Mysterious El Willstro (talk) 14:46, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Just because an article is a stub, that isn't a reason to delete it is it? Also, this isn't just about the results. World records were set. Notable events (with sources to back them up) occurred. The mission of Wikipedia would be to report on these notable events. But I would advise you to reread the articles. There's no way everything that's on those articles are on athletes's articles. Philipmj24 (talk) 00:03, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 17:05, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:42, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - no valid for deletion given. AFD is not cleanup. Barney the barney barney (talk) 13:31, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Did you actually read the entire nomination? I ask because you somehow seemed to have missed my mention of WP:NOTSTATS, which is part of WP:NOT, which means I have in fact provided a perfectly valid reason for deletion. I mean, it's straight from the list of what Wikipedia is not for, so, pretty valid. Now, if you want to argue that these articles aren't just indiscriminate lists of statistics that's another story, but just baldly saying no reason was provided is easily proven false. Beeblebrox (talk) 16:05, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It has already been discussed that these articles are more than statistics, but you seem to ignore that and haven't responded to that argument. 146.7.75.4 (talk) 19:56, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep No way, this is not a good nom. There are so many worse articles that should be deleted. SOXROX (talk) 14:29, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OTHERCRAP is generally considered an invalid argument. I tried to be pretty thorough in my nomination, could you please be more explicit about what was "not good" about it? Beeblebrox (talk) 16:05, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't mean to say that you didn't do a good job of explaining it, your argument's actually pretty thorough. The problem is, these pages you referenced are only a few of many weak pages. Look at Diving at the 2001 World Aquatics Championships – Men's 3 m synchro springboard for example. This article is much better written than that one. I'm not attacking your reasoning at all. SOXROX (talk) 19:04, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And that's just one example (several others were also mentioned) in how these stubs can be expanded into more complete articles. Which again, proves they're more than stats. 146.7.75.4 (talk) 20:00, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Ire Works. (non-admin closure) Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 02:32, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Milk Lizard[edit]

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

Fails WP:NSONG, as the single failed to chart. I did remove an edit that redirected this article to Ire Works, but that was when I was new in town. Insulam Simia (^talk/_contribs) 18:23, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:21, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete pn - and a Google search doesn't really show any reliable sources Dusti^{*Let's talk!*} 01:59, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:40, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Ire Works. The song does not appear to meet WP:NSONG, which suggests that such instances should redirect to the parent album. Gong show 14:09, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Ire Works - The usual practice is to redirect to the album the track belongs in. No indications of independent notability. Michaelzeng7 (talk) 14:16, 14 July 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) 17:45, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yamaha ASEAN Cup U-13 Football[edit]

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

Non notable youth tournament. If the qualification page for the 2014 AFC U-14 Championship page was merged with the main tournament page because it supposedly lacks independent notability (even though that's bogus in itself) then surely this should be deleted. Banana Fingers (talk) 17:57, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:08, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:09, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 09:35, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - The nominator should read WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS for arguments to avoid in deletion discussions. Mentoz86 (talk) 18:39, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 19:16, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:36, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete After a web search,I find no secondary sources about this competition.Anyway,a U13 football competition is unlikely to be notable enough for Wikipedia.L smll 10:27, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I found no reliable sources after a search. 069952497a (U-T-C-E) 19:43, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - U-13 is not notable. --MicroX (talk) 22:20, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Secret ^account 04:08, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

ACE College of Engineering[edit]

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

Fails WP:CORP. At first glance, it would appear that this is a tertiary education provider. It is not. From its website:

ACE Engineering College is the brain child of "ACE Engineering Academy" the leading institute in Hyderabad in coaching prospective Engineering graduates for GATE [Graduate Aptitude Test in Engineering] for admissions in M.E./M.Tech/MS in IISc, Bangalore and various IITs/NITs and various universities...

It is a private coaching business for students studying for the Graduate Aptitude Test in Engineering.
Note: It would appear that "ACE College of Engineering" is a Kerala branch and/or franchise of the Hyderabad-based ACE Engineering Academy. Both are apparently private coaching businesses for students studying for the Graduate Aptitude Test in Engineering.
Shirt58 (talk) 11:49, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Non notable CORP or academic institution. Eduemoni ^↑talk↓ 14:55, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:37, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:38, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:38, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 19:21, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:35, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. postdlf (talk) 20:51, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

JETGO Australia[edit]

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

Subject recieves no coverage in media. A google news search brings up nothing. It's a small airline that owns 3 small planes, so that fact is hardly suprising. As the article is not notable or covered by reliable sources it should be deleted. ★★Retro Lord ★★ 09:32, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - "Subject receives no coverage in media" when I see at least 3 reliable mainstream media sources [11][12][13] that have significance coverage of the airline, within the article. Really don't see why this was nominated for deletion. —Dark 14:01, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Serious? Mainstream media sources? I'll give you News.com, but its a bit of a stretch to call the other two "mainstream". ★★Retro Lord ★★ 14:51, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps mainstream was the wrong word. But it's pretty clear that they would be considered independent reliable sources; as such they would pass the notability requirement set by WP:CORP —Dark 15:05, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Coverage in Flightglobal here.Nigel Ish (talk) 17:41, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:19, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:19, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:20, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:20, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep there is "significant coverage independant of the subject", not only the Courier Mail, but Australian Aviation (which is Australia's foremost aviation industry magazine - I would class other aviation magazines in this country as primarily written for enthusiasts or people learning to fly), which has also had a two-page article about the subject in the middle of last year. There are articles in several other Queensland newspapers, including from Mackay and Rockhampton (both fairly large regional centres). Coverage will increase with time, but as I said there is already significant coverage now. YSSYguy (talk) 08:01, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep - The shoddy excuse for deletion was invalid several days if not weeks before this AfD was started. Per WP:AGF I will not judge this as anything other than a mistake. PantherLeapord (talk) 23:27, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Firstly I must declare that I work for JETGO, but nevertheless feel it may be helpful if I respond. I was not aware that popularity is criteria of Wikipedia. The comments made regarding the amount of media coverage we receive are interesting, but fail to understand that jet charter by nature, and its clients particularly value; exclusivity, confidentiality and privacy. As a result JETGO does not give media interviews or issue media releases. I will go as far as to say we try our best to avoid the media.

Yes we are a small charter airline with 3 Embraer Regional Jets in service, and a fourth undergoing pre-delivery in the USA.

Is the company significant??? I will leave that to others to judge; however JETGO is the only operator in Australia of true regional jets (in the sub 70 seat market), it gained a jet AOC (for both domestic & international operations) in a remarkably short time frame last year. When I joined the company 9 months ago we had just one jet, today we have 3 and a 4th scheduled by September. And the company is profitable. In the last year we operated commercial flights into 42 towns & cities around Australia and Asia. A remarkable achievement by Jason Ryder & Arron Mulder (and the rest of the small team).

If I was asked about deleting the JETGO Wikipedia article 6 months ago I would have fully supported the notion. But considering that Wikipedia is such an important reference tool for so many, particularly those interested in aviation, the fact there is a page is something I now have no issue with, providing the content is accurate.

Over the next 18 months JETGO is likely to add another 5 jets and will expand into some RPT operations, you will also see our aircraft in more places including charter services as far away as London, so I expect there will be more media coverage about us.PaulBredereck (talk) 04:09, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep Just because the company operates a relatively small fleet is not grounds to delete the article. WP:CORP notability guidelines state "Arbitrary standards should not be used to create a bias favoring larger organizations or their products". As the original creator of the article, this company was brought to my attention through media coverage in The Courier Mail via news.com.au, so I do not accept the argument that the media coverage is only local and trivial in scope. Australian-based aviation companies with similar fleet sizes and less cited sources are well represented on Wikipedia, many as stub articles which remain unchallenged. Given JETGO is distinct from other small charter operators in the Australian resources sector FIFO market by way of its business model operating sub 50 seat pure jet aircraft, a fact which has been documented in Australian Aviation and Flight Global as well as current expansion I believe deletion of this article would be inappropriate. Dfadden (talk) 13:03, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Self promotional piece falling short of WP:CORPDEPTH. Sourcing is just listings, local interest coverage and one from "media of limited interest and circulation". Not enough. duffbeerforme (talk) 01:02, 20 July 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) 17:45, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

LightAdmin[edit]

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

Unsourced article about software released just yesterday. Lack of available reliable sources suggest that the subject is not notable. Fails WP:NSOFT. - Mr X 20:05, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:35, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete lacks significant coverage in independent reliable sources. -- Whpq (talk) 16:34, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:27, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. - Mr X 13:08, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. - Mr X 13:09, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per Whpq. Just not notable. NintendoFan (Talk, Contribs) 15:45, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Does not appear to have received coverage in reliable sources, let alone significant coverage. Zero Google News archive hits [14] and zero Google Books hits [15]. Northamerica1000^(talk) 21:35, 19 July 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 Alabama 3. (non-admin closure) Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 03:02, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Mountain of Love (band)[edit]

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

Completely non-notable band. I literally can't find anything on it besides social media sites; it is difficult to google because even searching "mountain of love band", with quotes, turns up more pages on the Foreigner song than this band. TKK ^{bark !} 20:40, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not notable. Insulam Simia (^talk/_contribs) 20:52, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. As per WP:BAND: "Is an ensemble which contains two or more independently notable musicians, or is a musician who has been a member of two or more independently notable ensembles". Two members fall under this criterion as founders of notable ensemble, Alabama 3. 46.65.41.21 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 08:32, July 7, 2013‎ (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:03, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:03, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Alabama 3. I'm a little mystified why nobody else has suggested a merge. Activities of members of notable bands are certainly worthy of note. In this case, given a suitable merge target, a one-line article isn't justified. --Michig (talk) 14:05, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Alabama 3 - Merging does seem like the most logical option. A small blurb about the activities of 2 of the members of a bigger band (bigger by one person) isn't going to cut it for notability. Michaelzeng7 (talk) 12:47, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:27, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per WP:SNOW: I have now merged Mountain of Love (band) per WP:BOLD into Alabama 3. Bearian (talk) 18:26, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Alabama 3, which has already been performed by User:Bearian. Northamerica1000^(talk) 21:39, 19 July 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. Though willing to userfy per request. Secret ^account 04:03, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Scottish Parliamentary Review[edit]

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

The journal's website indicates that this is a very new publication: "The Inaugural Issue will be available on or about 30 May 2013, so subscribe now!" and the text placed on Talk:Scottish Parliamentary Review by the article creator basically confirms no achieved notability. I put a WP:PROD on this article with the rationale "No evidence that this publication meets the notability criteria" The Prod was removed by the article creator without comment or remediation, along with the maintenance tag. The issues remain so I am bringing it to AfD on the same rationale. AllyD (talk) 10:46, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 10:49, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:08, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 09:19, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: A new journal with no notability at the moment. SL93 (talk) 03:34, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's true that the journal is new, and is just now distributing to subscriber libraries. The purpose of the Wiki page is to let the international research community know that Scotland finally has its own legislative journal focusing on the Scottish Parliament. Unfortunately, I did remove the maintenance tag not understanding the rules here and stopped after reading the posts above. The Wiki page allows a researcher to get basic information about the new journal. I don't understand how removing/deleting it would assist the research community. AmHistorian (talk) 23:28, 15 July 2013 (UTC) (AmHistorian)[reply]

As an encyclopedia, Wikipedia only accepts subjects that are currently notable per WP:N. SL93 (talk) 00:04, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. postdlf (talk) 17:45, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

David Sheehan[edit]

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

This looks largely like unsourced promotional rubbish. Jamesx12345 (talk) 20:16, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

~~User:Jamesx12345 - Which page did you nominate? I don't think PageName, deleted since 2009, was the intended target. Chris857 (talk) 21:56, 6 July 2013 (UTC)~~ Bleh, I'm blind. Anyway, I have fixed this nom page. Chris857 (talk) 21:58, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oops. Thanks for fixing it. Jamesx12345 (talk) 22:00, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:38, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:38, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:38, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I tried to clean up the promotional bits, removed uncited assertions, and tagged some of the career highlights as needing citations, but this man's long and fairly accomplished career appears to be quite notable based on substantial coverage in reliable independent sources. Candleabracadabra (talk) 21:28, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 09:17, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I agree with Candleabracadabra. GNews shows a number of potential sources behind paywalls, including several LA Times features. --Arxiloxos (talk) 16:31, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Fever (Kylie Minogue album). postdlf (talk) 17:46, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Burning Up (Kylie Minogue song)[edit]

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

The song "Burning Up" hasn't been released as a single. There are no references supporting it as a single. Harout72 (talk) 17:09, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:47, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:47, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 09:10, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Fever (Kylie Minogue album). (I'm not sure why so many users would rather flat-out delete a song article instead of redirecting it nowadays.) Erpert ^{Who is this guy? | Wanna talk about it?} 16:56, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as above, per WP:NSONG. No substantial coverage/reviewing. Not a hit. Did not change the face of popular music. --Colapeninsula (talk) 10:18, 15 July 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. :) ·Salvidrim!· ✉ 12:35, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Miner of Duty[edit]

(Find video game sources: "Miner of Duty" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · TWL · NYT · WP reference · VG/RS · VG/RL · WPVG/Talk)

WP:VG/RS hits are all cursory mentions. No significant coverage—only ref is from an unreliable source. Article topic doesn't pass the search engine test for notability (the GNG). Page author removed PROD citing the page's lack of content but no argument for notability. czar · · 21:05, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) czar · · 21:06, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 09:08, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The game was the fourth most purchased indie video game for Xbox Live, but I found no significant coverage. SL93 (talk) 03:44, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like that link ranks it 13th for the year (instead of fourth) czar · · 03:35, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. A7 Secret ^account 01:06, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

NC Benfica[edit]

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

This is an unreferenced one sentence stub about an amateur club. I found no notability as well. SL93 (talk) 22:12, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Portugal-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:12, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:12, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:12, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 09:07, 14 July 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) 17:46, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Incwell[edit]

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

Promotional article about a non-notable rapper who has never charted. All the external links are either broken, lead to the same YouTube videos, or are just trivial mentions (and the Amazon and Google Books links don't mention him at all). I didn't notify the creator because he created the article in December 2011 and hasn't been on Wikipedia since. Erpert ^{Who is this guy? | Wanna talk about it?} 05:55, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Erpert ^{Who is this guy? | Wanna talk about it?} 06:00, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Would be speediable if it was recently added; as such, no evidence of meeting notability criteria. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 06:07, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I couldn't find anything to show that he's ultimately notable. He is mentioned in the GBook link, but that isn't enough to show that he passes notability guidelines. A search for sources under his real name and band name bring up nothing usable as well. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 09:26, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:17, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

The result was keep. postdlf (talk) 17:46, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Heim theory[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Crackpot ideas don't need wiki articles. See the following discussions: 1 and 2. The "theory" is just nonsense based on quack ideas and numerology. Wikipedia should not promote such nonsense quack rubbish. Dimension10 (talk) 05:30, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but stubbify and rewrite. Although "Heim's theory" (of a different Heim) in linguistics will generate more hits in a google search, this rejected theory of everything deserves a short stub which makes it clear that the theory has not been accepted. At present the article is very poorly written with misleading unwarranted tables and obvious failings even in the lede. Reducing it to a stub with a prominent section on criticisms would solve those problems. A similar failed theory of everything is ECE theory. (This is a repetition of what I wrote in December 2012.) Mathsci (talk) 05:35, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It is much worse than ECE. As far as I know, ECE didn't turn to things like numerology and astrology and crackpot reasoning but it had a fatal error . Dimension10 (talk) 09:12, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I couldn't say whether it's better or worse. The article on ECE theory is written conservatively. Many errors were pointed out in the mathematics. (Off-wikipedia claims have also been made about its superiority to the standard model, applications to "new" phenomena that were probably scams, etc.) The main point here however is how an article should be written on a fringe theory that has had no mainstream acceptance. It seems that the options are either for no article at all or a shortish stub. Mathsci (talk) 09:32, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Heim theory or ECE could even claim that 2+2=5, or that electrons looks like dancing bananas -it doesn't matter for us. What matters is that sources talk about it. -- cyclopia^speak! 18:04, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Stubbify and rewrite or redirect to Burkhard Heim. The objection against the article as it stands is that it deceptively claims that the theory has some sort of standing in the scientific community, which it doesn't in the remotest degree. Attempts that I and others to mitigate these false claims have been removed by the partisans. The previous Afds are worth looking at. ECE theory treats a similar situation nicely. Xxanthippe (talk) 05:50, 14 July 2013 (UTC).[reply]

Comparison with ECE is meaningless. See my comment above^. Dimension10 (talk) 09:12, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral for the moment. The question really is not whether the theory is a good one or a stupid one, but whether if it is a notable one. There are a lot of references. Even a reference to a reliable source that says "There is no scientific basis whatever for Heim's Theory" would be an argument for keeping the article. Cleanup is probably the best option.Deb (talk) 07:34, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The question is not about notability. It is about advertisement of crackpot nonsense. Dimension10 (talk) 08:59, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The advertisement issue can be dealt with by cleanup. I recommend you take a trip to Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard for support.Deb (talk) 11:12, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It is not a mainstream theory, and is on par with things like [www.laporte-bryan.com LaPorte Bryan's Theory of Everything], and other such nonsense. Such unmathematical ideas which claim to be TOEs should not be promoted here, as it only fuels the crackpot industry. Dimension10 (talk) 07:34, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

By your nomination, it is assumed you support deletion. No need to "vote" twice. Cheers, Stalwart111 08:05, 14 July 2013 (UTC) [reply]

Keep with a lot of cleanup. The article needs to be almost entirely re-written in order to comply with WP:UNDUE. 069952497a (U-T-C-E) 12:33, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~. per WP:GNG, and WP:UNDUE. As far as I can tell, this theory does not have widespread acceptance in the scientific community. Also, the only real promotion seems to be from one or two of Heim's disciples, such as Walter Drocher, who may have been written about in an article here or there; and who may have spoken at a scientific conference here or there. However, even with this being the case, I am not seeing a lot of main stream coverage in the media; certainly not enough coverage in the media to say this article is notable per WP:RS. As far as I can tell, even this article's references do not link to reliable sources and therefore do not demonstrate notability per WP:GNG. Also, I'm not seeing anything pertaining to this theory on Google Scholar whether I use "Heim theory", "Heim theory of everything", or "B.Heim". All I get is articles related to Linguistics. So, in other words, I am not seeing any print, except unacceptable WP:RS, that ~~says~~ implies this theory ~~is widely accepted~~ has merit; and I am not seeing any print, except unacceptable WP:RS, that this says this theory has been discredited. At the same time, judging from the online physics forums and a couple of other online items, I personally believe this theory does not have merit. ---- Steve Quinn (talk) 17:31, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Comment. WP:FRINGE is probably more helpful than WP:UNDUE here. In particular, the nom is quite wrong when he says "Crackpot ideas don't need wiki articles." Notable ones do (although I have no opinion regarding the notability of this theory). -- 202.124.88.39 (talk) 03:32, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Here we go again. Notable per WP:GNG: see for a quick example coverage in books. That said, the nomination rationale is invalid. Is it crackpottery? Sure thing. Is "crackpottery" a deletion rationale? Not at all. Notable crackpot theories are still notable. By having this article, Wikipedia does not "promote" anything, we just describe a wacky theory that exists. NPOV/UNDUE problems can be solved by editing, so they're not a reason to delete, per deletion policy. -- cyclopia^speak! 08:47, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If you scroll through the search (on "heim theory" + "phsyics") on google books, after not so many entries the references are to the linguistic theory that I mentioned. Mathsci (talk) 09:04, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

After not so many entries, maybe: but I suppose [16], [17], [18], [19], [20], [21] are enough for WP:GNG. -- cyclopia^speak! 09:57, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and clean up. The book sources noted above establish the facts that it's (a) notable and (b) rubbish. Being rubbish is not a deletion rationale. -- 203.171.197.29 (talk) 09:36, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Wikipedia is not here to decide what is right, what is crackpot, but what is WP:NOTABLE, and this theory is notable, even the New Scientist comic has an article about it. Some people may WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT, but that is not a reason for deletion. If there is another theory of the same name, then create another article for that theory, having a more notable theory is not a valid reason for deletion for the lesser one. If there are reliable sources calling it crackpot, then call it crackpot.Martin451 (talk) 12:24, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Change to Keep , per GNG, and make it a stub per WP:FRINGE. Thanks to Cyclopia for providing the book sources. There is nothing to indicate that this is an accepted theory in the scientific community. However, the sources show that some people are at least interpreting Heim theory with unique perspectives. Yet, in contrast, one source from Springer (by K.F. Long) appears to be a serious scientific endeavor, and on page 295 it states: "Heim theory is not studied as part of mainstream scientific research today". [22]. So, it seems the "stub" should probably be written from this perspective. Also, in the beginning of the New Scientist article, it states that the awarded paper is based on an "idea [that] relies on an obscure and largely unrecognized kind of physics". Additionally, the New Scientist article does not appear to state anything conclusive about the theory, and does seem to depict the theory as unproven ( Full text copy here || New Scientist site - paywall ). ---- Steve Quinn (talk) 17:26, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That would be fine if you or somebody else would undertake to do the stubbing. The same conclusion was reached in the previous AfD but nobody did anything. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:12, 19 July 2013 (UTC).[reply]

OK. Yeah, I would be glad to do it. I can probably do it within the next couple of hours. Also, this is a WP:SNOW, anyway. Also, I just noticed that there may be sources available at the 3rd AfD to help with the stubification and notability. Somehow I missed the third AfD. I did review the firat two, however.

(Btw, interesting vocabulary on Wikipedia --> "stubify" and "stubification". But are they ready for the dictionary yet? :>)} ---- Steve Quinn (talk) 00:28, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What I mean is I can probably get started in the next couple of hours. I don't really how long this will take. As with any article, stub or longer, the ducks must be lined up correctly. ---- Steve Quinn (talk) 00:58, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Splendid. You will have my backing for this. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:26, 19 July 2013 (UTC).[reply]

Thanks. I have already begun. I am giving your more info about this on your talk page. Don't want to be off topic here. ---- Steve Quinn (talk) 02:35, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It does not seem that anything has changed since the previous AfDs that should warrant another discussion. The subject does seem to be notable (regardless of its status as a scientific theory). I am more concerned with the walled garden of Walter Dröscher and Burkhard Heim, individuals who appear only to be notable for their contribution to Heim theory. Sławomir Biały (talk) 07:01, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Closed with no prejudice against speedy renomination. (non-admin closure) Michaelzeng7 (talk) 01:24, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

St Bakhita Centre[edit]

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

fails WP:ORG. I could not find any substantial in depth coverage. It just a small community organisation. LibStar (talk) 04:42, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I added some stuff, but I am not an expert on it. Thereandnot (talk) 03:15, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:04, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:04, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 03:19, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Tom Morris (talk) 05:12, 14 July 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. In the sense of "not delete". The discussion is really about whether to redirect or merge this to List of Route 66 museums, but there isn't a consensus for that here and it's at any rate not a discussion for AfD, but for the article talk page. Sandstein 06:35, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Berwyn Route 66 Museum[edit]

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

Promotional article for very small museum, with only very local sources. It's already adequately discussed in a short paragraph on List of Route 66 museums. I bring it here instead of just redirecting because I think the article should be deleted first, and then a new redirect made. DGG ( talk ) 03:41, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The list article was created as a means of covering museums for which we only have a paragraph or so of info, so not enough for an article on each. To cut this one down to fit would require removal of valid, sourced info (and the criterion for sources is reliability, which has little to do with their being "very local" - the National Enquirer isn't local) K7L (talk) 10:48, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I agree. There's nothing wrong with the sourced info. I'm not as familiar as some of you with all the considerations that go into retaining Wikipedia entries, but as someone who knows something about the museum itself, I'd have to say that it hasn't had much national notice outside of Route 66-related organizations because it's specialized and it hasn't been around as long as other, larger museums; but that in itself doesn't disqualify it. The citations may be from local media, but I don't think that should disqualify it, either. Moreover, it's related to another entry already on Wikipedia about a piece of public art that no longer exists, called Spindle -- except for the two pieces of that sculpture that remain with this museum. I doubt you can get all that into one or two sentences on this other page, and I don't see the reason for such short shrift.Mrtraska (talk) 23:05, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ Merge. Much as I love this kind of little museum, this one doesn't seem to meet the criteria of WP:ORG, which are required for a stand-alone article. Specifically, "attention solely from local media [...] is not an indication of notability; at least one regional, national, or international source is necessary." Almost all the sources in the article are from the local newspaper; all the GNews hits are from Romeoville, which is about 25mi (40km) away. The Chicago Magazine source in the article doesn't mention the museum by name and the Auto Channel source is primarily about an event and only mentions the museum briefly. Most of what I could find with Google was blogs and directories. There's no reason that the single sentence at List of Route 66 museums#Berwyn_Route_66_Museum can't be expanded to a couple of paragraphs, incorporating some of the information from the current article. The result could be similar in style to something like List of recurring The Simpsons characters. Dricherby (talk) 12:04, 30 June 2013 (UTC) Altered to merge in the light of the good point about copyleft, made by K7L below. Dricherby (talk) 17:57, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment- "incorporating some of the information from the current article" may be incompatible with deleting the article and its history, as reusing any part of the text requires that the history be retained for CC-BY-SA copyleft compliance. K7L (talk) 16:21, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:33, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Museums and libraries-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:34, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per Dricherby. –Fredddie ™ 23:08, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm not as familiar as some of you with all the considerations that go into retaining Wikipedia entries, but as someone who knows something about the museum itself, I'd have to say that it hasn't had much national notice outside of Route 66-related organizations because it's specialized and it hasn't been around as long as other, larger museums; but that in itself doesn't disqualify it. The citations may be from local media, but I don't think that should disqualify it, either. Moreover, it's related to another entry already on Wikipedia about a piece of public art that no longer exists, called Spindle -- except for the two pieces of that sculpture that remain with this museum. I doubt you can get all that into one or two sentences on this other page, and I don't see the reason for such short shrift. I'm for keeping the entry. Mrtraska (talk) 23:01, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Above comment transcribed from the talk page. Given the last sentence of the comment, I added the bolded !vote on the front. Dricherby (talk) 23:13, 1 July 2013 (UTC) [reply]

Unfortunately, the lack of notice outside the immediate area is what does disqualify the article. For a topic to have an article on Wikipedia, it must be notable, which has a specific meaning, here: it must have received "significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject." The additional guidelines for organizations and companies explicitly say that "attention solely from local media [...] is not an indication of notability". The problem with sourcing only on local media is that local newspapers tend to write about every tiny thing that happens in the town, and they often print pretty much what the subject of an article wants them to print. That means they're not good for judging the importance of subjects and they're often not really independent sources. On the other hand, if you can find some non-local sources that give reasonably in-depth coverage to the museum, then the article would most likely be kept. If the article is merged into the page on Route 66 museums, it doesn't have to be just one or two sentences. If you look at the Simpsons characters page I linked above, it has several long paragraphs about some of its entries (e.g., about 500 words on Jebediah Springfield). Dricherby (talk) 23:48, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The guideline on "organisations" might be appropriate if we were attempting to determine whether an organisation (such as Berwyn Arts Council) is notable, but it does not even mention museums per se. It seems to be intended for national-level entities such as the Red Cross. K7L (talk) 12:32, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think WP:ORG is appropriate. The lead of that page describes it as applying to "a group of more than one person formed together for a purpose. This includes commercial and non-commercial activities, such as charitable organizations, educational institutions, hospitals, institutions, interest groups, social clubs, companies, partnerships, proprietorships, religious denominations, sects, etc." The museum is a group of more than one person (its staff) formed together for a purpose (displaying exhibits etc.). The section WP:NONPROFIT explicitly talks about organizations with local scope so applicability is definitely not restricted to national or international bodies. Dricherby (talk) 12:57, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Not sure what Simpsons has to do with a Rt. 66 Museum, but this seems to be a unique snowflake. I found a couple of Route 66 books that mention it, and of course the Spindle project. It also appears to be the home of the first electric charging stations in the area. Like the other editor, I'm slightly acquainted with it and it definitely meets WP:LOCAL for a Merge if not its own article. EBY (talk) 05:59, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 03:18, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Tom Morris (talk) 05:11, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Mrtraska had suggested that merging the article into the list of Route 66 museums would mean reducing it to a couple of sentences. I pointed out the list of Simpsons characters to show that this is not the case: it's perfectly possible to have a "List of..." article that has several paragraphs about some entries. I'm not sure what you mean by saying that the museum is a "unique snowflake" since every snowflake is unique and we don't have an article about every little thing just because it's unique. And I'm not sure what you mean by saying that it "definitely meets WP:LOCAL". WP:LOCAL says that we shouldn't have articles about things that are of purely local interest. Unless there are sources from a wider area than Berwyn's immediate surroundings, WP:LOCAL says that the museum probably shouldn't have an article of its own. Dricherby (talk) 08:46, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WP:LOCAL is about commercial businesses, churches and hospitals - all of which serve a primarily local clientèle. Most of the Route 66 tourists seem to be seasonal visitors from Europe and other faraway places, not Chicago locals. It's as irrelevant as the Simpsons to this (doh!) K7L (talk) 09:01, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

From the lead of WP:LOCAL: "places and people, including but not limited to [my emphasis] churches, historic buildings, breweries, people, pubs, malls, masts, neighbourhoods, parks, schools, stations, highways and streets, that may be well-known locally, but little-known outside the community in question." This says nothing about having a local clientele: for example, a gas station by the interstate doesn't suddenly fall out of the scope of WP:LOCAL just because it's used by drivers from all over the country who happen to need gas in that location. The problem that we have here is that there seem to be no sources from outside the immediate area of Berwyn that demonstrate the notability of this museum. Do you have a source that indicates that most of the visitors to the museum are tourists from other continents? Dricherby (talk) 09:40, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. No prejudice against speedy renomination (non-admin closure) Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 03:01, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Marco Tulio Boasso[edit]

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

Not notable, previously deleted at AFD, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Marco Boasso. G4 declined since the new entry is not similar enough to the previous one, but this entry has the same flaws brought up in the first AFD: while his position sounds important, there's a lack of third party coverage about this person. Note also that the current version of the entry is pretty much the same as the version declined at Articles for Creation (diff). Hairhorn (talk) 03:38, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Uruguay-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:01, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:01, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 03:17, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Tom Morris (talk) 05:10, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Secret ^account 04:05, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

L. Sue Baugh[edit]

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

Promotional article for author of a recent self-published book, which has exactly 4 library holdings on WorldCat, a year after publication. Her earlier work consists of some rather widely held but perfectly routine very elementary textbooks. DGG ( talk ) 03:36, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:59, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:59, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I'd like clarification of exactly how obscure an author has to be in order to be disqualified form having a Wikipedia entry. By your admission, her previous work is widely published. Do we now hold nonfiction how-to authors in lower esteem because they're not writing great literature?? Is that the criterion to be used -- great literature, or nothing? That's rather elitist. She's widely published, even if she isn't a New York Times bestseller. And there's no problem with the citations.Mrtraska (talk) 23:10, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The general requirements are at WP:GNG; specific criteria for authors are at WP:AUTHOR. Dricherby (talk) 00:20, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If her earlier work is important, then the article should be about it, not her later endeavors. In particular, a self published book in essentially no libraries is not even worth mentioning. DGG ( talk ) 05:24, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 03:16, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Tom Morris (talk) 05:09, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A local review or two about a self-published book seems to be the crux of the notability claim here, which doesn't cut it. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 06:13, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to The Magic Portal. postdlf (talk) 17:47, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Lindsay Fleay[edit]

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

Does not appear to meet WP:FILMMAKER. I could find no reliable sources that establish notability. Ahecht (talk) 01:35, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:42, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:42, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:42, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like a good Redirect to The Magic Portal for me. I'm sure there's coverage of the filmmaker, but this is not appearent. EditorE (talk) 22:18, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 03:14, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Magic Portal also has notability issues. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 22:41, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I'm new here, but I believe that Lindsay Fleay is very notable in filmaking. Despite the recent emergence of a film featuring Lego characters from 1973, it is acknowledged that he invented the modern art of Brickfilms. The Magic Portal is a very influential work: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jde4qHbCtSg Lindsay also created the characters from the famous "digital rain" graphic from the Matrix film. This is arguably one of the most recognisable movie images of the CG era of filmmaking. He is credited here: Work,_51 and here: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0133093/fullcredits for his work on The Matrix. At the time of my writing this, The Magic Portal has over 666,000 views on YouTube! --Eltweedo (talk) 10:00, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your constributions Eltweedo. Please understand that notable is not the same as "famous" or "important" and relies on significant coverage in reliable sources. There are varying standards of notability for various categories of articles, and this article would fall under WP:WEB and WP:FILMMAKER.

I'm not sure that brickfilms meet the standard of a "significant new concept, theory, or technique" laid out in WP:FILMMAKER. While there are community sites based around brickfilms, the idea of making stop-motion films using common objects was not significantly new at the time, and dates back decades. Please also review WP:WEB and WP:BIGNUMBER. Specifically, the following:

Similarly, a website may be notable, but the owners or authors do not "inherit" notability due to the web content they wrote.

A commonly seen argument at AfD is "Subject has X number of Y, that's notable/non-notable". Notability isn't determined by something's quantity of members, but rather by the quality of the subject's verifiable, reliable sources that I could find. An article on a topic is more likely to pass the notability test with a single article in Encyclopedia Britannica than because it has 1 million views on YouTube.

The Matrix information is not covered in the article or any reliable sources that I could find. IMDB is not considered a reliable source per WP:USERGENERATED, and none of the sites you listed say that he "created the characters". While Animal Logic did produce the digital rain graphic, Lindsay Fleay is one of a couple dozen people listed on the Animal Logic site as having worked on the film, and the only source on the Matrix digital rain article is Lindsay's own resume which doesn't actually state that he personally "created the characters", only that he "built the motif", which could mean just that he was on the team that made the effect.--Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 13:26, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Tom Morris (talk) 05:08, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to The Magic Portal per EditorE. 069952497a (U-T-C-E) 12:36, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to The Magic Portal per EditorE. Notability aside, currently there is not enough stuff to justify an article. Cavarrone 06:04, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Secret ^account 04:06, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Mature Hearts[edit]

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

After source searching, this topic about an online dating provider appears to fail WP:WEBCRIT. I haven't found any coverage in reliable sources at this time. Furthermore, the sources in the article don't mention the website. Northamerica1000^(talk) 02:02, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:07, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Tom Morris (talk) 05:06, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. I can't find anything which would suggest that the website is notable. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 03:00, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Closed with no prejudice against speedy renomination. (non-admin closure) Michaelzeng7 (talk) 01:31, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Mikael Hagstrom[edit]

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

promotional bio of a non notable executive. Speaking on panels is not notability As for promotionalism, note the 3rd paragraph under SAS Institute. The existence of a paragraph like that shows the failure to understand the difference between an encyclopedia article and a press release.

The first reference, claimed as the Boston Globe, is actually a copy of a press release from Business Wire. Nothing else is even by appearance a reliable source for notability DGG ( talk ) 05:58, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:08, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:08, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dusti^*poke* 00:37, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Tom Morris (talk) 05:05, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - first of all his last name was incorrect troughout the article. Anway, had he been an american businessman this article would have never been brought to AfD, just being real.--BabbaQ (talk) 13:54, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. No prejudice against speedy renomination (non-admin closure) Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 02:58, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Harry Ahluwalia[edit]

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

I am unable to find multiple reliable sources discussing this actor. None of the references in the article are reliable sources. Google search brings up mostly social networking, blogs, and the like. The film in which he makes his debut is itself of unclear notability. ... discospinster _talk 23:06, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:04, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:04, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dusti^*poke* 00:24, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Tom Morris (talk) 05:04, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy deleted (G11) by Jimfbleak. (Non-admin closure). Stalwart111 08:20, 14 July 2013 (UTC) ))[reply]

Amrapali gupta[edit]

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

Article of living person that does not seem to fulfill WP:Notability (people). Unreferenced article, did not nominate for CSD A7 because it does seem like it could be notable. kikichugirl (talk) 04:50, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Per WP:SK#1, the nominator withdrew their nomination without dissenting opinions. (non-admin closure) Michaelzeng7 (talk) 01:29, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The National Debutante Cotillion and Thanksgiving Ball[edit]

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

Non-notable event. Unreferenced since 2008, and I was unable to find any significant coverage to establish notability. MelanieN (talk) 04:06, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington, D.C.-related deletion discussions. MelanieN (talk) 04:11, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. MelanieN (talk) 04:13, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment OK, now I'm confused. I did find what appears to be a significant media report about the event, written in 1960. The report makes the event sound notable, but it gives a different founding date and names a different founder from the information listed in the article. If we can resolve this discrepancy the article could be a keeper; otherwise I think we have to remove it as unverified. --MelanieN (talk) 16:10, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That source is about a different ball. There are plenty of sources here confirming that we have the correct founder. Phil Bridger (talk) 17:49, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A different ball, with the same name, in the same city, on the same day? Really? So how do people know which one this article is supposed to be about? In any case, the coverage I found about that "other" ball (founded in 1935 by Dr. Mary McLeod Bethune) was more detailed and significant than the coverage about the one in this article (founded in 1949 by Miss Mary-Stuart Montague Price) and IMO is more deserving of an article than the one we now have. --MelanieN (talk) 19:16, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No, not the same name. That one is the International Debutante Cotillion. Where do you see any reference to the National Debutante Cotillion and Thanksgiving Ball in that article? Phil Bridger (talk) 19:25, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I see! Sorry for misreading. Well, IMO the International Debutante Cotillion would be notable, if it had an article, but it doesn't and that's not what we're dealing with here. Most of the news items I found about the current subject were along the lines of "Miss so-and-so, daughter of so-and-so, will make her debut at the NDCTB" - in other words, not significant. But some of the items you found by adding Montague-Price to the search could bring the subject up to notability, particularly this one. Anyone want to add a few to the article? --MelanieN (talk) 19:51, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not all sources have the leading "The": Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL. Phil Bridger (talk) 17:49, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Withdraw nomination The sources you have added to the article prove beyond a doubt that the topic is notable. Good work! --MelanieN (talk) 20:37, 15 July 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) 17:47, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Alvin and the Chipmunks 4[edit]

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

Fails WP:NFF - shooting is not confirmed to have started. Even then, there aren't enough reliable sources to confirm notability this early. Beerest355 Talk 02:10, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No credible sources confirming the preliminary existence of a 4th Alvin and the Chipmunks production. There is currently no information from Twentieth Century Fox or Dunes Entertainment regarding a sequel. Jake (talk) 03:10, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - All right then, redirect it to its Alvin and the Chipmunks: Chipwrecked sequel section. -- Assassin! No, Captain Assassin! ^{( T - C - G )} 03:40, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:07, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this and the fan-made "poster" swiped from a Facebook compilation page. Nothing announced and sources are merely parking pages for a maybe title and a exhibitor publication listing maybe dates. Nate • (chatter) 05:47, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I was not aware that the poster was fan made because of the logos on the bottom corners. I've seen fanmade posters in the past that did not have any studio logos on the poster. But as for what I think should be done with the article: redirect to the article. I'll use Rio 2 as an example since that is the last article I created that was a candidate for deletion. It was a maybe then, but it ended up being a movie that is going to happen. That is my reasoning for the article being a redirect for now (as it was before I created an article).--BarrettM82 Contact 19:39, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There should never be any reason to take a random Facebook picture of a tentative movie article and use it as the infobox image as you can easily find film posters pretty much anywhere, and why would a 2015 film project have any key art in the first place. Just because it has logos doesn't mean that it's real; it's called Photoshop and it's very easy to do. In fact if you had done some WP:BEFORE and typed 'alvin and the chipmunks' into Google Image Search, #4 is this image, with Alvin reversed and the background changed. Film studios never re-use images for past films with sequels. Nate • (chatter) 02:53, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm aware of photoshop. I don't use it, but I use GIMP, so I know what can be done with photo manipulation programs. But I wasn't aware that studios didn't re use images. Well I knew about that image you linked to, but I figured it was an early poster [for Alvin and the Chipmunks 4]. An early poster for Ice Age 4, for example, used stock images from the first, if I remember right. But after this, I doubt that one was real now, but who knows. It was in a photograph, not an image like this one.--BarrettM82 Contact 19:51, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete (add a redirect after, if desired) - Fails all applicable criteria with flying colors. Nothing to salvage. - SummerPhD (talk) 23:52, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. L Faraone 01:06, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Bucher aircraft tractor[edit]

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

The subject does not meet the WP:GNG. Although I cannot easily assess the existence of print rerefences to the subject, there is no significant online coverage of the subject in either English or German (searching for "Bucher Flugzeugschlepper"). There are some listed for sale; there are a couple of WP:SPSes listing all equipment of the Swiss military on which it is mentioned. There is one ref listed in the article, this being the operations manual for the vehicle. There was another ref listed, the Schweizerische Militärmuseum Full, but I removed this as I could not find any mention of the subject in the museum's website. There are two ELs in the article, one is a listing in a WP:SPS database of all Swiss military vehicles; the other is a database listing on the official Swiss Armed Forces database of all its equipment. I removed some other ELs, which were links to youtube videos; a link to an image on a SPS and a link to an image on a blogspot page. I also edited to remove a large amount of material which appears to have been translated from the German WP article on the subject, but which isn't properly referenced there either and may be WP:OR. None of what I removed demonstrates notabililty of the subject, nor does what remains in the article now. YSSYguy (talk) 01:06, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. YSSYguy (talk) 01:48, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. YSSYguy (talk) 01:48, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Switzerland-related deletion discussions. YSSYguy (talk) 01:48, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am against the deleting of this page about the Bucher aircraft tractor, it is about the most important aircraft tug of the Swiss Air Force. This articel exist also in the german wikipedia, and unfortunatly many sources can be found only in german. A lot of text , pictures (pectures are a referenc to) and references are deleted by YSSYguy. He deleted a few times the sole civil user JuAir out of the user list and now after i add it again he will deelet the page now. I see no reason to delet this page about this aircraft tug who the swiss air force use for every aircraft type they have. FFA P-16 (talk) 04:04, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please provide the sources in German that might indicate the subject's importance and notability. YSSYguy (talk) 06:11, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Pushback, where it is already covered, but the sources required for a standalone article seem not to be present. Sandstein 05:40, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Generic proposal for aircraft tractors. Jane's Airports, Equipment and Services for the appropriate period might well help establish notability, though I do not have a copy to hand. But I agree there is insufficient notable material for a standalone article, especially once the trivia are pruned. However I think Pushback is not the right home because this article is part of a wider problem: there are several articles similar to this one and some have also been tagged for AfD. The list, tagged and untagged, includes (but may not be limited to):
- Bucher aircraft tractor
- M2 High Speed Tractor
- MB-2 tow tractor
- MOWAG-AEG
- U-30 Tow Tractor

Bunching them all together into one article seems a bad idea, as the infoboxes would become overpowering. So I'd suggest the default would be to include them on the manufacturer's page(s) or, if there is no such page, use a bit of WP:COMMONSENSE. For example the Bucher and MOWAG-AEG tractors were designed specifically for the Swiss Air Force so they can go on that operator's page(s), possibly a new Swiss Air Force ground equipment page.

— Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 06:49, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Why not merge all to List of aircraft tractors or something? There's no rule that says that we must include infoboxes for all of them there. Sandstein 08:19, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - or incorporate somewhere else as already mentioned. There is norearthly reason why an aircraft tractor should have its own article. A generic article on Ground equipment should suffice.--Petebutt (talk) 13:36, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It is also a sub page of the MOWAG page it is in this case a description of a MOWAG Vehicle. FFA P-16 (talk) 06:05, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep there will be references in specialist press about this. It's the sort of thing that will have been researched. Barney the barney barney (talk) 13:48, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps with your degree of perspicacity you will be able to tell me what the winning Lotto numbers will be next week. If the article creator would just produce his sources that demonstrate Notability - he edited the original article on the German WP as well, of which this is basically a translation - then there is no issue; but I'm not finding any. I have found a total of 18 ghits for "Bucher FS 10 Flugzeugschlepper" of which there is a WP:SPS; a website reviewing the SPS; a german-language aircraft discussion forum; a scale modellers' forum; some WP mirror sites; a company selling military surplus equipment that has some for sale; a couple of images; and a couple of Swiss governmental web pages. Searching for "Bucher FS 10" yields 27 ghits, but apart from those brought up by the first search it's more modellers' forums, more images and more WP mirror sites. Again, please produce sources demonstrating notability. YSSYguy (talk) 04:41, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. It is the sort of thing that will have been researched because it's the sort of thing that certain men (well mostly men) are interested in - in that regard aircraft tractors are like trains or cars or buses or trucks or planes or whatever. That you don't have a basic understanding of this is somewhat disheartening, but you clearly don't, and without such an understanding, you won't be able to find any references because you won't be looking in the right places. The right places to look will be in print books, in German, by certain men. If you haven't checked these properly, (and you haven't) then IMHO you shouldn't be nominating this for deletion. Barney the barney barney (talk) 18:21, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thinking of the wider context, what if this were an American equipment for an American operator? A lack of Google hits or the language barrier would not stop a torrent of references from the specialist press. But because this is Swiss/German nobody is looking. Are we going to keep American articles but delete non-English articles just because the formalities are harder to work through? We need to look in all of the English, German, French and Italian specialist presses. Surely the least we can do is allow the non-English article a good long breathing space. Above I suggested Jane's Jane's Airports, Equipment and Services. Has anybody been able to look? (apologies but I simply do not have the time). — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 09:19, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I can go to work in the morning, drive around on the apron, and find aircraft tugs manufactured in several different countries, but I very much doubt that any of them would be notable, regardless of their country of origin. As for keeping American articles, I PRODded articles about two American aircraft tugs a few days ago - those articles have no references at all. Even a database listing in Jane's for those and the Bucher would not equate to Notability for any of them. YSSYguy (talk) 13:32, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

But they aren't advertised on WP:DELMIL and you didn't PROD the most likely to invoke defense, the M2 High Speed Tractor from WWII, which is equally poorly referenced. It would be interesting to see what posting all three of these on WP:DELMIL would throw up. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 22:07, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I dont agree with YSSYguy s deleting, also the deleting of one of the fact sheets links relatet to the official VBS page about this aircrafttug just because ther its writen it uses aviatic fuel and on the private page about it diesel fuel. In fact it was made to use aviaticfuel but because of the poison additiv ethoxol (anti-ice) the air force switchet to diesel (it would stil run with both). I also dont agree of the deleting of the pictures, because they act also as referenc that this tug is used for differend Aircrafttypes and as tractor for weapons trailer (AIM-9) (and the only civil user the JuAir), the youtube clip acts as reference for the use of the floorlight in the aircraft cavern. It is on one hand a page about a Swiss air Force gound vehicle but it is on the other hand also a page about one of the MOWAG (former Bucher) vehicle. It was not easy to find material/references about it in german, but in the end it was enough to keep the page on the german wikipedia.

FFA P-16 (talk) 05:48, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well any aircraft tug can be used to move any aircraft for which it is rated, and can be used to tow trailers as well, so none of the images demonstrate Notability. I didn't delete the fact sheet link - you had it as an External Link, I moved it to the References section where it belongs. I tagged a sentence about the vehicle using diesel because of the fact sheet, now you have removed the tag without providing a reference. So, I have a question: is the material you are adding to the article based on what you personally know about the vehicle? YSSYguy (talk) 06:59, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Isee where you come from, but not any aircraft tug can used on any aircraft (an aircrafttype can be too heavy) I just wantet to point out that this one can be used for every aircraft type in the Swiss Air Force (pulling a full loaded F/A-18 uphill brings it to its limits. This is the reason why at Meiringen AFB also the bigger Douglas aircraft tug are, to pull the F/A-18 into and out of the cavern). It is possibel to pull other stuff as a aircraft with most of the aircraft tug, but the Swiss Air Force use only this type as tractor for the engine-start trailer and so one and for the "carello"Team (the team who has to change the wheel if an aircraft with a flat tire block the runway). I tryed to give to every informatin I add on the page a reference, the fact sheets, the pictures (as reference to the JuAir part), pictures of differend aircraft used with this aircraft tug (DHC-6, Fa900,F/A-18 , Puma/Cougar, BAe Hawk) and the youtube clip as referenc for the work with it in a aircraft cavern. In the Military Museum Full is such a Aircraft Tug with a description plate, it is not shown or listet on the homepage (like many other vehicles there also for eg. the MOWAG Shark,M-113, NVA T-72 Tank and so on).e Some things I postet here (and not on the page) for eg the story about the avation petrol / diesel, or the carello team I can't prove with a reference because this are things i just personnally know about the vehicle (and this dosent count on wikipedia) because I made the driving permission for it in 2000.

FFA P-16 (talk) 12:02, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"not any aircraft tug can used on any aircraft (an aircrafttype can be too heavy)" - which is why I wrote "any aircraft tug can be used to move any aircraft for which it is rated". As for the rest, basically it's notable because you say it is; as all you have is the tug's operations manual, a plaque in a museum, a database entry listing basic specifications of the vehicle and nothing else, some pictures taken by you or a friend of yours, some other pictures that are of such poor quality it's impossible to tell what sort of tug is depicted, and a Youtube video that doesn't even mention the vehicle by name - we only 'know' it's a Bucher because you tell us it is. YSSYguy (talk) 13:32, 15 July 2013 (UTC)~[reply]

@YSSYguy and whats about the links to the official and inoffical webside datapages you saw by your self? Sorry but if you have a look at this sheets and then at the photos (even SOME but not all have a bad quality) and the youtube clip you can clearly see that it is the same type.I don't see why you critisze this evidences, it is obviously that the clip and the photos show this, also no one put this in question on the german wikipedia. It is disapointing that you put in so much efford to delet this page. FFA P-16 (talk) 22:53, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete very limited use and like most ground equipment is not really notable, may be worth putting in a big list of aircraft ground equipment but not a stand-alone article. MilborneOne (talk) 19:21, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@MilborneOne, it is not only to see as article about ground equipment in aviatic, it is also part of the topic swiss Military vehicles, and it is not a stand-alone because it is part of differend sub pages who dealing with MOWAG vehicles in detail. So please don't see this not only from the "aviatic" side. FFA P-16 (talk) 22:41, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge. There will almost certainly be usable information in Jane's, though it will be a while till I have a chance to check for myself. Deleting because of the absence of online sources is absurd, except for those relatively few topics that will certainly have them if they are at all notable . Sandstein's second proposal, to merge to a article on Aircraft tractor is what would otherwise make the most sense. Considerations such a "very limited use" are not appropriate for an encyclopedia-- Wikipedia is not an abridged encyclopedia limited to the most commonly used topics (the German Wikipedia, which has considerably stricter notability requirements in general than we do, at one point intended to limit itself to 1 million articles, and even they have gone over --they're at 1.6 million by now.) Subject that are part of industrial infrastructure are greatly under-represented. That they are uninteresting to the majority of likely users should not be a factor--almost all topics on WP are of interest only to a minority, but together they make up a comprehensive encyclopedia. DGG ( talk ) 04:42, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep DGG sums it up nicely. The nominator can't reach paper sources, so delete this? Pardon? As an aside, I would advise the article needs substantial cleanup but by no means deletion. Maybe if the aviation project could expend as much energy in improving these types of articles as they do trying to delete them, we'd have a substantially enriched encylopedia. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:35, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- This is not your first sideswipe at the WikiProject Aviation community. I am not a project member so let me defend them. These guys are not a small cadre of sworn PoV editors, but like any Wikipedia community they are a moderate-sized herd of cats, some foolish and some wise. Just because you bump up against the odd cat once in a while, please don't go disparaging the whole herd in public. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 09:31, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - I guess as a non-member, you have seen the aviation project's talk page with is strikingly dominated by AFDs and not much else. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:37, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Jimminy Jillikers, RamblingMan! Are you adopting a position opposite to the alleged "cabal" you have been banging on about lo these many weeks as a matter of personal policy? If it is mentioned in Jane's (which is not yet shown to be the case) of course there will be useful information, it's a directory, but an entry in a directory does not demonstrate Notability. It will have some specifications and be evidence that it exists, but you and I exist and we aren't Notable (as far as I know - you aren't some famous dude lurking on WP and accusing people of sinister behaviour for shits and giggles are you?). No-one has yet come up with anything demonstrating Notability, but we have several people arguing "keep, because there simply must be something about it out there"; or "merge into something else", but how is a list of vehicles with no significant coverage any better than a set of articles about vehicles with no significant coverage? YSSYguy (talk) 09:54, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@RamblingMan. If you dig that little bit further, you will see that most of those AfDs are posted by an IP editor. There are no IP editors in the list of project members, so you can't so quickly blame the members for that. Of course you could follow up the AfD discussions and gather stats on what members have said individually and collectively, or if you are suspicious of IP sockpuppetry, ask for that to be investigated. Or you could just accept that paranoia is a life hazard. ;-) — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 11:22, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No, those are images in general. Dig back a little further, you'll find many, many AFD and prod chats between project members (not IPs). The Rambling Man (talk) 11:34, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

So, you are choosing to dig deeper. Is this body of AfDs breaching policy or guidelines? If so then take action and I will support you, if not then you and I have nothing to complain about. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 13:04, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No, you asked me to dig "that little bit further". I didn't need to. I've witnessed the activities of teh handful of active aviation project members, and if you care to look, archives bare testimony to the fact that article deletion is on the forefront of their mind. I'm simply responding to your original cat-herding post here. Incidentally, it's hardly a sideswipe, it's a full frontal trout. If some of the energy which went into attempting to eliminate these articles was redirected into making them better, we'd have a better encyclopedia. Now go sue me for stating the bleeding obvious. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:37, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I invited you to. Not quite the same as asking. Are you asking me to sue or just inviting? <;oD — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 20:38, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ooooh. So "inviting" isn't quite the same as "asking"... how ... precise. Sue away Steely, sue away. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:41, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Good morning (well it is over here). WP:SUE redirects to Wikipedia:No legal threats, so I wouldn't dream of falling for that one. But I come back to my original point: just because a couple of cats have peed in your bed is no reason to go kicking every cat you meet. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 08:28, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, but there are only three or four cats, and they've all peed in the bed. Bad cats. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:51, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:WikiProject Aviation/Members lists a lot more than four. At least some would seem to be house-trained. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 10:36, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A bare pawful are active. Miaow. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:49, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

So why trout all of them? They might wake up and eat it. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 13:02, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Very borderline, so I expect there will be a renomination in 3-6 months if the article isn't improved. Stifle (talk) 15:20, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Tito Traversa[edit]

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

BIO1E, NOTMEMORIAL. Apparently a promising mountain climbing talent who died at a young age. All the information on him comes from his obits, which indicate that he was climbing difficult sport climbing routes at an early age, without any indication of where or what (thus the sources show he is notable not for his accomplishments, but for his death). He has no notability outside of climbing, and not having won any trophies or competitions in climbing, he does not meet GNG, ATHLETE, or any other specialized notability guidelines. MSJapan (talk) 22:04, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Obviously only known because he died from a fall, so this is an utter violation of NOTMEMORIAL. Nothing long-standing in this event either. Beerest355 Talk 22:27, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep His death has received international press coverage. Perhaps a move to Death of Tito Traversa is in order.--Racklever (talk) 06:55, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support keep per above. --kikichugirl (talk) 03:46, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Traversa does not meet the notability standard for an athlete. The guidelines, set out at WP:SPORTCRIT are intended to reflect the fact that sports figures are likely to meet Wikipedia's basic standards of inclusion if they have, for example, participated in a major international amateur or professional competition at the highest level. The very limited coverage of Traversa indicates that, although very talented for his age, he did not come anywhere near the basic standard required to be truly considered a notable climber. He may have had potential, but did not have time to fulfill it. Accordingly, keeping the article would effectively be a memorial to a talented younger athlete, but not in accordance per the WP policy. Wikipeterproject (talk) 12:10, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep He's notable enough. He was the youngest person to make a 5.14 graded climb (the standard of climbing when using that scale). He was also (using UTC) the first 10 year old to make a 5.14 climb (a few hours earlier than Brooke Raboutou, who is a two weeks older).

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:44, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:44, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:45, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:SPORTCRIT, Wikipedia is not a memorial website. Hekerui (talk) 20:48, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Notability seems to rest almost entirely on his untimely death. If someone wants to recreate with better sourcing and coverage of his career, if such exists, that would be a different matter. Candleabracadabra (talk) 21:09, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep He broke records how is that not notable in addition to that there is international coverage on his death. Entity of the Void (talk) 21:24, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There was also international coverage of a monkey wearing a coat outside of an IKEA a while back. Far more. Still was, as of June. InedibleHulk (talk) 06:03, 8 July 2013 (UTC) [reply]

So you want to make a page for the monkey ? Entity of the Void (talk) 07:20, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't, until after I mentioned it. Then I tried searching to see if it had already been created and shot down. I'm surprised it wasn't (at least not under any title I tried). Now that I think of it, that monkey has a pretty strong case! This guy still doesn't. InedibleHulk (talk) 07:37, 8 July 2013 (UTC) [reply]

If you dont think he has a good case why did you vote keep ? Entity of the Void (talk) 08:06, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It was a conditional keep, with a big "if". Thought it could just use some work. Now that I've looked a bit, it doesn't seem there are notable achievements to add, so it's basically a delete vote. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:01, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

*Actually, the Ikea monkey did have an article, but was deleted in an AfD.Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 03:20, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, IF the championships, broken records or other notable achievements are at least mentioned (and sourced, of course). Being someone who climbed and was also Italian doesn't cut it. I've tried to find a source for a championship (Recent Deaths called him a champion), and all I see is a vague mention of the word, without specifics. The top English one here says he had "champion-like drive". Even I have that, sometimes. InedibleHulk (talk) 05:36, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: There are no documented records or championships and that is the problem with this article meeting the standards of WP notability standards. Being "campion-like" is hardly a basis for notability, as you correctly point out. Wikipeterproject (talk) 08:29, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Sad death of a young child, but not notable prior to death (fails WP:SPORTCRIT) and death should neither be memorialized nor criteria for notability. WWGB (talk) 06:31, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Zero notability, despite the sad death and his age. --Lemur12 (talk) 10:21, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Sad that a child was permitted to throw his life away, but not notable, for reasons stated above.Sylvain1972 (talk) 20:35, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete in its present state.Deb (talk) 11:54, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Tito was one of the best climbers among children, his successes deserved for a wikipedia article even before this tragic fall. Now, as a result of the tragedy, he became more recognizable not only for climbers, but it does not matter - he had been notable enough before he died. Unfortunately, my English is not good enough to develop this article - it is a stub now.Tescobar (talk) 18:14, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
KeepThis is not correct. In his home country, close to everybody knew him before his death. He is the youngest person ever to climb the grade 8a (even A.O. did not) --Lampi-tm (talk) 12:28, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

— Lampi-tm (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. WWGB (talk) 11:18, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L Faraone 00:39, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: It almost goes without saying that opinions not arguing a position based on WP policy should be disregarded in determining the outcome of this debate. Respectfully, the last two "keep" contributions fall into this category. They express a personal opinion, without policy substantiation. Wikipeterproject (talk) 08:26, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

OK, let me justify that what I have written is not only a personal opinion. Wikipedia is considered an union of all specialized encyclopedias, am I right? If yes, it should include all records of a hypothetic "encyclopedia of sport climbing". In such an encyclopedia there should be a place for Traversa's biography for two independent reasons: (i) he was a youngest person ever to achieve sport grade 8a and more, (ii) because of unusual circumstances of his accident. The reasons of this tragedy are analysed in climbing media all over the world. Tescobar (talk) 15:59, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I don't know the Wikipedia outline for "notability," so I'll point out a few things and let the notability experts decide. Climbing (free climbing, rock climbing, etc.) is a sport without a known world-championship. Instead, it has standards (grades/gradings). The grades are often subjective in nature. There are many different grading systems. The generally accepted "standard" (not the toughest/highest) of climbing is a 5.14a (using the Yosemite Decimal scale; the rough equivalent would be the British E10 or French 8b+). Many people have successfully climbed 5.14a, so that, by itself, probably would not be notable. What's notable is that Traversa was the first person in the world, 10 years of age or younger, to successfully scale any 5.l4 or better (two others have scaled a 5.14 since), and also the youngest person to ever do so. That is his chief claim to fame. I'll let the notability experts decide if that's enough.Tom Barrister 17:16, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

On balance, keep - surprising that there isn't an it.wp article, but that aside evidently notable to WikiProject Climbing. We give wide latitude to sports projects, given this child has more coverage than most Olympic athletes and footballers with BLP stubs, cannot see any great logic in all the effort - including comparisons with monkeys wearing coats outside Ikea (what the hell is that for?) above to delete. More content would be good. In ictu oculi (talk) 03:07, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's from dying a kid not from any notability criterion. Hekerui (talk) 08:31, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - expansion needed. But I have to agree with user In ictu oculi some of the reasons stated above for deletion are not only shameful but almost slanderous of a dead person.--BabbaQ (talk) 14:09, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: "Slanderous"? Suggesting someone is not notable in accordance with Wikipedia policy is perhaps somewhat short of slander! Wikipeterproject (talk) 23:19, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. with no prejudice against speedy renomination. There is no consensus to delete at this time. Potential merges or redirects can be discussed on the article's talk page. (non-admin closure) czar · · 04:41, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

PatchMatch[edit]

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

Does not seem notable for inclusion, no RS ~~and may infringe on Adobe's patents by revealing an Algorithm.~~ Tyros1972 Talk 09:27, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: There is a reference for this article PatchMatch: A Randomized Correspondence Algorithm for Structural Image Editing. This algorithm has been published for study, so no worry Erickraz Talk 21:04, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:45, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:45, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: thanks for the info, I will remove the improper use tag. Tyros1972 Talk 22:15, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Rename or redirect. Inpainting and Iterative reconstruction both mention similar algorithms. We could put them all in one article on these algorithms and have this as a redirect. I don't know if we have such an article already or what it could be named.--Canoe1967 (talk) 16:03, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Canoe1967. Andrew³²⁷ 16:06, 29 June 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, — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:34, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep. The article is describing an algorithm and as such is vastly relevant for Wikipedia. I don't agree with bundling it into the Inpainting or Iterative reconstruction articles. One long article that lacks focus, No. I don't even know why it's been nominated in the first place. It could do with some additional sources, but the nature of the material could mean it will have perhaps only have single source. It's certainly valid.scope_creep (talk) 1:39, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Michaelzeng7 (talk) 00:05, 14 July 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.