< 4 July	6 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 delete. postdlf (talk) 02:18, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Participant Marketing

[edit]

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

Non-notable neologism. The only sources I found using this term are referencing Daina's book. Brainy J ~✿~ (talk) 15:50, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:43, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:43, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this non-notable newly coined term. There is no indication that it is making any progress into common usage. --Stormbay (talk) 03:12, 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, Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 23:50, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: No notability. SL93 (talk) 17:16, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - a recently coined term (probably to promote their consulting business). It does not seem to have caught on. As described in the article, I am unable to see the difference between "participant marketing" and "social media marketing". -- Whpq (talk) 16:04, 9 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. Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:25, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Jahshaka

[edit]

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

Poorly sourced article about an open-source project that has had sporadic development. Mind matrix 20:57, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete, unless proper sources are cited. NintendoFan (Talk, Contribs) 22:25, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak delete sounds okay. This article seemed more relevant several years ago when the project was off to a nice start. Afraid the likelihood of getting good secondary sources on this are pretty low. -Fadookie ^Talk 21:44, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:43, 28 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, Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 23:43, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - sources provided are forums and developers' site and do not establish notability. A search for Jahshaka and another for CineFX did not turn up significant coverage in reliable sources. Dialectric (talk) 15:31, 11 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 Supernatural (season 4). Non-admin closure. Beerest355 Talk 22:37, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In the Beginning (Supernatural)

[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

A very non-notable television episode. Unlike other Supernatural articles, this one appears to be simply all plot with one review. Beerest355 Talk 22:27, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Frietjes (talk) 14:30, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Frietjes (talk) 14:30, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

delete, if you were to remove the plot, all that would be left is a single review. no indication of external recognition of notability. most of the other episode articles are good examples of how to write an episode article that isn't all plot like this one. Frietjes (talk) 14:36, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect — I created the page as a redirect to the season episode list, namely Supernatural (season 4)#ep63. User:Comedian1018 was the one who made it an article and added all the content, you should probably let him/her know. _Xeworlebi ^(talk) 08:31, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Just delete it or revert it back to the Redirect Comedian1018 (talk)

I will do that now, as it doesn't seem that there are any arguments toward keeping. Beerest355 Talk 22:32, 8 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) 02:17, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ibrahima Iyane Thiam

[edit]

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

Request by subject from VRTS ticket # 2013070510009776. No opinion. L Faraone 22:11, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I must admit, I'm not entirely sure what the nomination means, but he has not played in a fully pro league or received significant coverage, so the article fails WP:GNG and WP:NSPORT. Sir Sputnik (talk) 14:44, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 14:44, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The subject is indefinitely blocked for using multiple accounts and requested via OTRS that the article about him be brought up for a deletion discussion. L Faraone 21:19, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:28, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:28, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:28, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Fails WP:NFOOTY and WP:GNG. --ArsenalFan700 (talk) 04:46, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 09:13, 8 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 G3 - blatant hoax Giant Snowman 10:39, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Road to World Cup Serbia 2014 (CONCACAF)

[edit]

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

WP:HOAX. There is no "jmc World Cup Serbia 2014", and I'm pretty sure that CONCACAF is not doing elimination rounds for it, since they're doing them for the actual 2014 World Cup in Brazil. Author has a Facebook page and a YouTube video (the addition of which was reverted by a bot) that seem to follow the same overall theme. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 22:04, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:33, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:33, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Obvious hoax. Creator is just documenting his FIFA 13 tournament as if it were really an article. He is doing it again with this page: 2014 ICC Cup. --ArsenalFan700 (talk) 04:43, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete It is a blatant and obvious hoax. There is no such thing, and it is helped by the fact that some games are being played in cities not capable of hosting the games. Citrusbowler (talk) (contribs) (email me) 13:36, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete. I came across this article by accident, and was immediately confused. Let's remove it asap. Grande (talk) 13:44, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - made-up garbage -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:40, 7 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. Mark Arsten (talk) 20:35, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Davit Hakobyan

[edit]

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

Recreation of an article previously deleted by PROD. Concern was Article about a footballer who fails WP:GNG and who has not played in a fully pro league. This remains valid. Sir Sputnik (talk) 20:28, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following articles for the same reason. Sir Sputnik (talk) 20:33, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 20:33, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Delete: All fail WP:NFOOTY and WP:GNG. --ArsenalFan700 (talk) 04:48, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all - fail WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 09:13, 8 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 'withdrawn by nominator Beerest355 Talk 01:08, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

2003 Tushino bombing

[edit]

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

Event with no long-standing coverage. WP:NOTNEWS applies. Beerest355 Talk 20:03, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:37, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:38, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:38, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:38, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - A terrorist incident that killed at least 14 people [1] non-notable? And what's with this "no long-standing coverage" coverage claim? That link was from a 2008 book. This coverage was from a 2005 book. This is from 2004. This one's from 2011. And these are only English language sources. There's likely much more in Russian. These took only a few seconds to find. A textbook case of why WP:BEFORE should be an absolute requirement. --Oakshade (talk) 06:32, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- People dying doesn't guarantee notability. Those books didn't seem to be coverage to me. Rather, "this happened." But, as there are probably some sources I have overlooked, I will be closing this as a withdrawal. Beerest355 Talk 00:51, 8 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. Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:32, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Clements Worldwide

[edit]

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

I do not see any notability for this small insurance office. It has won no awards besides a "2010 Communicator Award", by the "International Academy of Visual Arts" [2] for "interactive excellence" , which seems to be one of the approximately 400 such awards given that single year [3] (besides an similar number in each of 5 other categories) and is consequently totally meaningless. Other things claimed in that section are mere listings or nominations. (One is actually the fact that they nominated their own VP for an award he did not win.)

The bulk of the article is promotional content devoted to the trivial $15,000 or so of charitable contributions it makes annually, including awards named after itself.

All the sources of pure PR, and could hardly be otherwise.

I apologize for wasting the time of editors here at AfD, but my speedy for A7 and G11 was removed. DGG ( talk ) 01:29, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington, DC-related deletion discussions. —Mike moral ♪♫ 03:01, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. —Mike moral ♪♫ 03:02, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Well I thought some of the article could be kept, and a more balanced viewpoint handled by other sources such as this one which talks about their lack of responses to customers and general nochalant attitude, unfortunately that's a self-published source so it can't be used. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 12:53, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Notability Issues

[edit]

I appreciate everyone's feedback on this and I can certainly understand the issue with the inclusion of the awards. I'll remove that section shortly. I decided to include it because this was my first new article and the article wizard was stressing independent sources. I googled their name and information about the awards was the most common citation on 3rd party sites. Good learning experience though!

Even without the award section, however, I still believe they fulfill the notability criteria. They have a profile on Bloomberg ^[1] and have offices in at least 2 countries (they're not a local yokel Main Street insurance shop). So, while they may not have as much published on them as a BUPA, who does a heck of a lot more than international insurance, Clements is still very well-known amongst the people who need that type of specialty insurance.

And speaking anecdotally as a now retired member of the expatriate community, Clements Worldwide is a very well-known name in English-speaking circles. If you ask an expatriate who some insurance providers are, Clements would probably be one of the top 3 listed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BarnyardWill (talk • contribs) 21:37, 28 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, Slon02 (talk) 19:52, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep A very notable specialty insurance company. Manifestly notable and very substantially covered in sources dealing with this field. It is also known and well established (historic?). That insurance, particularly this niche, isn't Manga or ComicCon related should not be held against the subject matter. Candleabracadabra (talk) 23:59, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hokay, looking through the sources, I see the following, in order :

Company overview - a primary source
[4] - looks like a press release.
Facing the gauntlet - this article is about building in Iraq, and Clements gets a cursory half-sentence mention. Not significant coverage
[5] - another primary source
[6] - is about Robert S Clements, not his company, which gets a brief one sentence mention. Not significant coverage, and notability is not inherited
Clements International Joins Council of Insurance Agents and Brokers - another press release

... I could go on, but hopefully I've got the message across. DGG has debunked some of the other sources at the top of the AfD. None of these sources really explain why Clements is important or significant to the layman reader from a neutral point of view. The above source I gave, whilst being a consumer forum and hence not reliable, gives strong negative criticism towards Clements as a UK car insurer, implying they are complete and utter rip off merchants. I would expect a good source to mention something like this as well as the basic company info. Summary : I'm staying with "delete". Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 14:42, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The company has been covered extensively and coverage of its founder certainly is relevant to the article. You obviously know very little about the insurance industry and insurance for expatriates. The company is very notable and has been in the news recently for its acquisition of British insurance businesses. What you think coverage in industry publications "looks like" is irrelevant, but you are correct that an internet post from an unhappy customer doesn't belong in the article (and I notice you've misrepresented what's actually said at that site as well). Here is a link to their coverage by the Better Business Bureau if you'd like to include that. Candleabracadabra (talk) 15:51, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

When people loudly assert "x is very notable" and start to comment on their fellow editors' knowledge (or lack of it), experience tells me I'm usually onto something. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 08:33, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I certainly believe your knowledge as an editor is sufficient and that you're making an honest inquiry into this article. However, I do believe that you're improperly characterizing some of the sources I cited. Expatriate and other specialty insurances are a subject that aren't frequently discussed in readily available online publications. Most of what's written on these types of companies is going to involve acquisitions/expansions, which will invariably read like a press release, such as what I already cited and things like this article on expathealth.org discussing their expansion into the Middle East market^[2]. Finding other types of articles that offer more than a cursory mention, if they exist, will probably be found behind the paywall of one of the industry's niche publications, such as this Africa Insurance Review article discussing the impact of a Kenyan election on political risk insurance.^[3]

Your reliance on the source you shared when trying to determine the quality and character of the company is also a bit overweighted, in my opinion. My personal dealings while I was abroad were fantastic, but even without that anecdotal evidence you can find more positive mentions or citations that establish their credibility as trustworthy company in this insurance niche than the one negative forum post you found. As mentioned, their BBB rating^[4] is an A+ and they appear to frequently present or sponsor conferences related to insurance, such as the Dubai International Humanitarian Aid & Development (DIHAD) conference^[5], Annual Middle East and Africa Insurance Summit^[6], and the Totally Expat show ^[7].

Expatriate resource websites will also frequently include Clements in their lists, such as the American Foreign Service Association (AFSA)^[8], ExpatWomen^[9], Expatriates.com^[10], and Expat Focus^[11]. As I've said, those in the expat community are sure to know the Clements name. So, despite having relatively little published in comparison to a BUPA or a Cigna, they're fairly well cited and favorably viewed as a speciality insurer. BarnyardWill (talk) 14:44, 9 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 Sledge Hammer! episodes. As noted in the discussion, while the individual episodes lack notability, they do remain useful search terms, so redirection is appropriate. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 14:06, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Under the Gun (Sledge Hammer!)

[edit]

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

These are non-notable Sledge Hammer! episodes, with no third-party sources to establish notability. This show did not last very long, so it doesn't deserve individual episode pages. Beerest355 Talk 18:46, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:46, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete All as non notable episodes. Koala15 (talk) 04:43, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and Redirect All to List of Sledge Hammer! episodes. Potential search terms, so the redirect is appropriate, and thus leaves contributions in place. --MASEM (t) 13:59, 10 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 Withdrawn again (WP:NAC). JJ98 (Talk) 18:20, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sandy Cheeks

[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Fancruft. No third party or out of universe notability. JJ98 (Talk) 17:54, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. JJ98 (Talk) 18:08, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. JJ98 (Talk) 18:08, 5 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) 02:17, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

List of aircraft accidents and incidents resulting in at least 50 fatalities

[edit]

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

Duplicates much of this list and this [[7]] 50 is an arbitray total. List's infobox also violates WP:OR in its phase section. Northwest Airlines Flight 255 and Viasa Flight 742 crashed after hitting objects soon after takeoff but are said to have happened in different phases of flight. How was this determined?

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. ...William 17:50, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. ...William 17:50, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. ...William 17:50, 5 July 2013 (UTC) ...William 17:50, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Duplicate of List of accidents and incidents involving airliners by location, List of accidents and incidents involving commercial aircraft & Category:Lists of aviation accidents and incidents. Has no real value. --JetBlast (talk) 17:55, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (Article creator)

Regarding duplication: Based on the two comparisons you offer, the list proposed for deletion provides significant advances, new information, and sorting abilities not present in the comparisons. List of aircraft accidents and incidents resulting in at least 50 fatalities provides the following unique contributions: Fatality rate, specific locations with appropriate links, phase of flight, departing or receiving airport links, distance from crash site (for early and late phases of flight).

All of this is organized in a comprehensive and highly sortable table (absent from the two comparisons offered) which further allows for differentiation of accidents/incidents versus attack on the aircraft (further broken out to sort by commercial versus military and types of attack perpetrated on the aircraft). List of aircraft accidents and incidents resulting in at least 50 fatalities can be sorted by total deaths, crew deaths, passenger deaths, ground fatalities, fatality ratio, incident (airline), aircraft, location, phase of flight, relevant airport codes, distance from impact. None of these features exist in the comparison lists. There are 21 references between the two comparison lists versus 600 references covering each incident with a link to Aviation Safety Network database and in many cases to the original investigation reports.
Accidents/incidents involving commercial aircraft requires that all entries have a dedicated Wikipedia article. This provision alone will never allow the list to be considered comprehensive. Without checking specific cases side by side, there are 111 occurrences in List of aircraft accidents and incidents resulting in at least 50 fatalities without dedicated articles, and therefore missing from accidents/incidents involving commercial aircraft. The list can search by year only.
accidents and disasters by death toll. For the specified scope and criteria, this list is missing 188 occurrences, and has no sorting ability.

There is no violation of Wikipedia:OR. All individual records of incidents are individually cited (which does not exist in either of the abovementioned lists). Figures appearing in tables are nothing more than routine calculations of the cited data. It is for this express reason that figures for standard deviation, correlation, and significance levels were not used. Most importantly, there are no inferences of causal relationships.

Regarding your concern about different phases of flight for Northwest Airlines Flight 255 and Viasa Flight 742 (TOF and ICL respectively), these phases of flight are recorded from the Aviation Safety Network database here and here.

I have no desire to put down or diminish the accomplishments of the comparison lists, that is not my style. However, this AfD has put me in a position where I must explain why I created a newer, expanded, more comprehensive, highly sortable and referenced list. Stylistically and given its scope and criteria, it is not a duplicate of any existing aviation list. --Godot13 (talk) 19:28, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - apart from arbitary cut-off point which has no satisfactory explanation, the phrase descriptive statistics, the extensive notes to explain the tables and the description of the methodology to derive the data all point to an attempt at a research paper - something WP is not. GraemeLeggett (talk) 19:39, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'd missed the statement in the article "Each accident or incident has been reviewed using Google Earth to find the location closest to the crash site" which steers close to OR.

How does this steer close? In some cases investigation reports provided specific coordinates for a crashsite. In others maps are provided with locations. How is entering this in Google Earth and determining the closest inhabited place OR?--Godot13 (talk) 22:02, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

and also "fatality rate" applied to % of occupants killed comes across as an invented phrase.GraemeLeggett (talk) 21:25, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Then make suggestions to improve the article, not wholesale delete it. And try to fix the article rather than make it worse which you seem to have done with your most recent clumsy edits. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:26, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Fatality rate % is very simply #fatalities/#total manifest. This is not original research, simply a way to provide a number that can be compared across occurrences so the reader is not required to sit with calculator. This type of statistic is wholly permitted.--Godot13 (talk) 22:02, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep we have a number of lists with cut-off points, it helps manageability of the length of lists. The title of the list explains exactly what the list comprises. I've seen that MilbourneOne has a list of personal issues about this, to which I've responded here. Quite why the aviation project is set on "delete as default" I have no idea. We don't use categories for a coherent list of disasters. We stopped using "... by location" or whatever several years ago. In fact, defending a "... by location" list and then criticising a "... at least 50 fatalities" list is crazy. Each define the content, and the presentation. This list is intended to be useful to our readers, not the owners of the Aviation project. I have raised concerns with Godot13 that there are some elements that could be removed (as they seem unnecessarily synthetic) so I'm not just waving a banner for this list. But it shouldn't be deleted. Finally, per User:JetBlast's comment about duplication, hardly! The two lists to which JetBlast refers have a handful of references between them. Both lists are woefully inadequate and rely on linked articles for references etc, which is entirely unsatisfactory. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:52, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep This nomination is kind of a joke to be honest as it is hard to assume good faith on the behalf of the nominator. When was the last time somebody asked/thought about when did a commercial aircraft crashed last (list of commercial aircraft crashes), or where do aircrafts crash (crashes by location), versus when was the last time somebody wondered what is the highest fatality crash? Just based on the scope, the location list should be deleted, since it is clear that it is encompassed by this list, while the commercial aircraft crashes should link here and discuss in addition notable crashes with less than 50 fatalities. This is a COMPLETE list from many perspectives. If you guys don't like having lists with over 50 fatalities, perhaps you should not have templates for each year emphasizing the 50 threshold. Nergaal (talk) 00:13, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per TRM, Nergaal, and WP:NLIST. Lists by location are outdated and should be merged into lists like this (we can easily make tables sortable now), except where they are divided into national categories to avoid getting the lists too long. Category:Lists of aviation accidents and incidents is not quite a duplicate, as it is a category and only includes those events with an article (the scope of this list would not prevent it from including incidents without articles). List of accidents and incidents involving commercial aircraft does not overlap as this list's scope allows it to include military aircraft, whereas the other is limited to commercial aircraft; also, the other article does not necessarily have a clear scope: what determines notability in such a list? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:01, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a useful list. Xxanthippe (talk) 06:37, 6 July 2013 (UTC).[reply]
- WP:ITSUSEFUL - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:19, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per all above. No real policy-based reason for deletion is presented, the list seems notable and useful, and this appears to be standard procedure for modern lists. GraemeLeggett's delete statement appears to make little sense to me either. And JetBlast seems to forget that the presence of a category doesn't mean a list is redundant. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 07:52, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
~~Weak delete.~~ First off, Nergaal, I don't think this article was nominated in bad faith. But more importantly, although I would hate to see so many users' hard work go to waste, it seems like the number 50 in this case was chosen arbitrarily. Yes, there are other list-based articles on here, but take a look at Category:Death-related lists; do you see any other quantitative article titles? I don't. There aren't even any such titles in Category:Lists by death toll. Another issue is the inclusion criteria section; who even determines that? And anyway, that kind of section is usually found within notability guideline pages, not on actual article pages. Erpert ^{Who is this guy? | Wanna talk about it?} 09:37, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- You mean a death-related list like List of tornadoes causing 100 or more deaths? Inclusion criteria is stated in the article title. Seems pretty clear to me. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:43, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - Oops, I missed that one. It's a keep then, but as far as the inclusion criteria section, it still doesn't state who determines why certain accidents are included and why certain accidents are excluded. The section isn't sourced, and there is no discussion about it on the talk page. Erpert ^{Who is this guy? | Wanna talk about it?} 15:22, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That section is surely very easy to state: any accident that involved 50 or more fatalities, inclusive of ground fatalities. And it shouldn't need sourcing, surely? Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 16:04, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Extremely well sourced list. I could use some more explication and less tables, but seems to be a sound article. Should also be an article titled List of aircraft accidents and incidents resulting in at least 100 fatalities but that's for the future.--Auric talk 12:04, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Such a split would mean this gets moved to List of aircraft accidents and incidents (resulting in 50–99 fatalities). Although that's in the future. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:21, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Nothing substantially wrong with this list; I agree that the cutoff is needed for size reasons. I've looked through it and seen nothing that appears problematic from WP:OR grounds; the biggest problem I've seen with this article is a WP:HEADER "violation", ==See Also==. Definitely onthing deserving deletion. Nyttend (talk) 13:27, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This article is too long, it is 400,000 bytes on Wikipedia. The size of the HTML source file (view page source) sent to my computer was 1.162 Megabytes. Unscintillating (talk) 23:05, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Which is a reason for splitting and not deletion. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:15, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The page is character/code-heavy due to 1) lot of use of <span> etc to permit sorting of the various columns and 2) the long names of the references. 3) some substantial notes to the table. Some terseness in these elements without losing content might be possible.GraemeLeggett (talk) 22:01, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That would be possible, but splitting would mean we'd have a longer time before we had to fix the list again (keeping in mind that aircraft accidents and incidents do not become fewer as time passes). — Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:37, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Obvious keep, poor faith by nominator. I abhor duplications, and this is not one, it is a substantial improvement, and the other article could be merged into this. 50 deaths may be arbitrary, but in no way is that against any rules. List of tallest buildings in the United States has an arbitrary cut-off at 700 feet tall, but there's no problem with that either. A question in the determination of a single data point sure as heck is not grounds for deletion. Reywas92^Talk 13:32, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment WP:LISTN in WP:N states, "Editors are still urged to demonstrate list notability via the grouping itself before creating stand-alone lists." But as other parts of WP:LISTN say, notability is not clearly defined for these lists. In this case, I think the problem is that the arbitrary cutoff of 50 doesn't create an independently interesting list, and has in turn led to an unmanageable file. I suggest that the answer is that this should be a top 100 list. I'm not opposed to a longer list possibly using multiple pages...this is a matter for the editors doing the work to decide. Unscintillating (talk) 13:53, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Top 100 is no less arbitrary than 50+ fatalities. Why not Top 75? Top 50? Top 200? The Rambling Man (talk) 14:24, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

At Wikipedia, we follow the sources, and I'm sure you are aware that there are top 100 lists of things in the world. "Editors are still urged to demonstrate list notability via the grouping itself before creating stand-alone lists." I did a Google search on [top 100 list of airplane fatalities] and the first item on the list was [8]. A list of 50 or 75 is not currently a consideration since we already have data for more. As I have stated previously, I'm not personally opposed to a list of 200 as you suggest...I think that this is a matter for the editors doing the work to decide. Unscintillating (talk) 21:25, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Lists that fulfill recognized informational, navigation, or development purposes often are kept regardless of any demonstrated notability. Editors are still urged to demonstrate list notability via the grouping itself before creating stand-alone lists. This list serves both informational and navigational purposes. While discussion of splitting the list is premature, if the table functions properly (i.e., sorts) why would we not want to have as much information as possible in a single list? Isn't that an Encyclopedic reference? The bottom section (1-50) will wind up being much longer than the existing list, and disproportionately longer than 50+ if split up. Also, a top 100 or top 200 list would mean that information we are publishing for viewers would be periodically removed as its ranking diminishes. If they are then to be added to a second list, does something get bumped from that list? It seems like it would only create more work each time something hit the "Top xxx" list.--Godot13 (talk) 04:45, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

We are in agreement on the technical points. What we disagree about is the cost benefit of deleting material to prevent the list from growing and to keep it interesting; and the beneficence of following the sources, or perhaps patterns used by the sources. And I take your point about the sorts, I missed that when I mentioned "multiple pages". But why does Wikipedia need so much information, isn't that what IINFO is about? How about a top 250? But I don't need an answer, one of the bottom lines in a volunteer organization is who is willing to do the work. Unscintillating (talk) 22:03, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Our nominator asserts a section of the article lapses from WP:OR. Our deletion policies explain that articles should not be nominated for deletion when someone has a concern over a section of that article. Rather, this concern should be raised on the article's talk page, and if others agree, that section should be fixed, or possibly excised. Our nominator has doubts about why some information is included? Again, this is a question for the talk page, it not grounds for deletion. Geo Swan (talk) 17:37, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The articles the nomination asserts this article duplicates are inferior to this article. List of accidents and incidents involving commercial aircraft has just four references. List of accidents and incidents involving airliners by location has just 11 notes and no references. This article has two dozen notes and over 600 references. 600 references -- that represents over one hundred hours of work. If the article was not policy compliant that would be irrelevant. But since no one has suggested any problems with policy compliance that couldn't be solved with simple editing that one hundred hours or more of work is relevant, and deserves a hats off and a job well done from the rest of us. Well done! And to the nominator? Could you please refrain from nominating any more articles for deletion? Geo Swan (talk) 17:37, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I think the nominator has long since left this nomination well alone. The Rambling Man (talk)
Keep This article is superior to the others. The dynamic chart is most helpful. Dream Focus 14:09, 9 July 2013 (UTC) And of course, it has ample references from reliable sources proving it obviously meets the general notability guidelines. That isn't really in question here, just where this article should exist when other similar ones do also. You don't delete a far superior article for the sake of a lesser one. Dream Focus 22:20, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:ITSUSEFUL - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:19, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The edit comment says, "please argue using policy!", but the post itself cites an essay. Looking at more of the essay, it says at WP:ATA#Just pointing at a policy or guideline, "Also, while citing essays that summarize a position can be useful shorthand, citing an essay (like this one) just by one of its many shortcuts (e.g. WP:ILIKEIT or WP:IDONTLIKEIT), without further explanation, is similarly ill-advised, for the reasons explained above." Unscintillating (talk) 22:03, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. A well-organised compilation of data. The cut-off point is arbitrary, but I'd say it is placed about right to keep the list within reasonable bounds. Any problems with WP:OR etc should be easy enough to sort out, I'd think. It could probably do with less jargon, but again that can be fixed. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:27, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: This is actually framed in such a way as to keep the list under control p b p 23:19, 9 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 00:31, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Patrick Manifold

[edit]

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

college player, div III. No referenced claims to accomplishment. In fact, only news report at all (save a bit of local news coverage of games he played in) is a puff piece tangential to his basketball career about a workout program from a local paper. Fails WP:NCOLLATH Gtwfan52 (talk) 17:50, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I know this man personally, and I even emailed him to check on a few matters before I updated it. Everything on that page is 100% true. Please can you help me to make the page OK by your guys standards, I am not good with computers but I have spent a long time making the edits on this page. Please can you help? ~~Gtwfan52 (talk)~~actually submitted by User:Basketball Fan 23 Gtwfan52 (talk) 18:26, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:34, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Maine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:34, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:34, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:34, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I'm afraid, Basketball Fan 23, the article can't be made OK by our standards, because our standards don't qualify Division III players for articles. The only other claim of notability is the purported inclusion in "Who's Who Amongst Students in American Universities and Colleges," but that confers no notability ... otherwise, I'd qualify for a Wikipedia article myself, having been named (along with something like 11,000 others) to an edition in the 70s. Ravenswing 10:37, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Does not meet GNG. Rikster2 (talk) 15:48, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- Unless those in the US, tell me that he is notable, I cannot believe that he is not NN. This is about notability, not accuracy. Peterkingiron (talk) 19:51, 7 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. -- Y not? 11:13, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Eurasian union youth of Jordan

[edit]

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

Notability has not been shown. Article's references are self-published, e.g. Wordpress blogs, Vimeo, Youtube, forums. Previous proposed deletion declined without reason. Brainy J ~✿~ (talk) 16:51, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Middle East-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:27, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:27, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:28, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above; this is one of a series of promotional articles for NN people/groups in this broad political association. MatthewVanitas (talk) 22:46, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- This looks like a NN church youth group, from a chain of them promoted by the Russian Orthodox church. We ought to have articles on the movement (red link) and its founder (no link), but this article is not suitable to be used to start that. Peterkingiron (talk) 10:28, 8 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. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 13:34, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Laurențiu Brănescu

[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Laurenţiu Brănescu

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

He has not played in a single match since the last afd, meaning the article still fails WP:NSPORT. The coverage he has received is limited to the usual match reports, player profiles, and transfer announcements, which does not amount to significant coverage, meaning the article still fails WP:GNG as well. Sir Sputnik (talk) 16:01, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 16:03, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete because the only club he has made any appearances for do not appear to be professional So he fails WP:NFOOTY Seasider91 (talk) 16:53, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Postpone Deletion until credible source is cited proving the Romanian Liga II as non-professional. Juve10 (talk) 15:48, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The burden of evidence lies with the side asserting notability. Unless Liga II can be verified as fully-pro, the article does not meet WP:NSPORT, regardless of whether league actually is fully-pro or not, per WP:VNT. Eleven time in the last month, there were afd's on footballers with appearances in leagues of unconfirmed professional status. All of the were deleted. See as follows. Latvia Division 1: Oļegs Baikovs (2nd nomination). Slovakia Division 2: Djiby Ba. Turkey Division 2: Necati Yılmaz, Berat Çetinkaya. Iraq Division 1: Didar Hamed, Hussein Karim (2nd nomination), Herdi Sejamahnd, Mohammed Jabbar Shwkan, Mohammed Hameed Farhan. Iran Division 2: Admir Adrović (2nd nomination). Armenia Division 1: Artur Avagyan. Just to name a few. Sir Sputnik (talk) 17:15, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:26, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:26, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:26, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:26, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Juve 10, the Wikipedia football portal has a list of professional leagues, only Romanias Liga I is listed there, therefore Liga II is not professional Seasider91 (talk) 17:08, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Fails WP:NFOOTY and WP:GNG. --ArsenalFan700 (talk) 04:51, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Seasider91, yes I am fully aware of the list. However, WP:FPL also lists non-professional leagues and the Romanian Liga II is not listed there either. See the talk page for full discussion on this matter Juve10 (talk) 03:31, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 09:13, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Just wait a few month he may or may not turned fully professional in lower leagues. BTW, Juve10, when could you learn the custom in wikipedia? such as using Template:cite news and in-line citation, did the university teach that? Not only on non-professional status, the "article" was built on very poor quality as well as not quite good citation. Matthew_hk t c 10:48, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Matthew_hk, your comment, aside from the first sentence, has nothing to do with the subject at hand. You clearly have something wrong with you that you need to insult my contributions in every comment you make. Do not insult my college in a sarcastic manner and I never want to see another post from you on my talk page again unless it is related to Wikipedia. For everyone else to know, Matthew_hk has been harassing me for more than 2 years and I would like to know if there is any action that can be taken if I can provide proof? Sorry to post this on a non-related post, but Matthew_hk publicly brought this about in the above discussion. His comments are not related to Laurentiu Branescu in any way, barring the first sentence. Juve10 (talk)

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. (non-admin closure) Dusti^*poke* 00:47, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Michael D. Ellison

[edit]

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

Musician fails WP:GNG. Koala15 (talk) 15:09, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn by nominator Enough proof of notability. Koala15 (talk) 21:09, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2013 July 5. Snotbot t • c » 15:53, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:24, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:25, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There is enough coverage of this individual to fulfill WP:GNG. First, regarding his involvement with the Concert of Colors event in Detroit:

His involvement is described in Hispanic Business and in The Detroit News.
An Detroit ABC News interview with Ellison about his involvement with the concert here

There is some other coverage I was able to find:

This Gazette Times about his opening performance for a Relay for Life event.
This is a trivial mention, but it identifies him as a host of a Knicks poetry slam event.
Metro Times article with some discussion of his reflections on being on HBO's Def Poetry Slam.
Gospel City article discussing Ellison's "industrious year" in regards to the Pelle Pelle urban clothing line campaign that endorses him.

Given the in-depth coverage of the individual, I am inclined to keep this one. I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 19:37, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Notable per Jethrobot. I don't know if you followed WP:BEFORE for this nomination, but please make sure that you do from now if not. SL93 (talk) 17:18, 6 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, article has no sources, and AfD unopposed for a long period. We can reasonably treat this as an expired ((prod)). Prodego ^talk 15:52, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Kajala

[edit]

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

Kajala appears via Google as a personal name, a type of loan and a pigment sometimes used as a cosmetic. What it seems not to be is a gotra. The only source that this article ever had was the dreadfully unreliable Ram Swarup Joon (itself a deleted article). Fails WP:GNG as a gotra and if someone wants to create an article about the pigment etc then they will need to start over. Sitush (talk) 12:02, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. Evano1van(எவனோ ஓருவன்) 12:23, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Evano1van(எவனோ ஓருவன்) 12:23, 21 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 · · 15:26, 28 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 · · 15:22, 5 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 Red discography. Mark Arsten (talk) 20:33, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Connect Sets (Red EP)

[edit]

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

non-notable EP. The existing refs are less than trivial and I can't see any better refs being found. My search showed none. Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:27, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:34, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Red discography per nom. The existing references only consist of a track listing, and everything they verify is already explained at the band's discography page. It turns out there are a bunch of EPs called 'Connect Sets' across a variety of artists who made them exclusively for the Sony Connect music store. Michaelzeng7 (talk) 20:15, 28 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 · · 15:22, 5 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) TBrandley (T • C • B) 22:27, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Certificate of disposition

[edit]

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

This appears to be primarily a how to guide (and Wikipedia is not meant for such things), and focused on a document that exists in a single jurisdiction that does not appear to rise to sufficient notability. Nat Gertler (talk) 13:49, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:37, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:37, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - WP:AfD is not meant to debate poor articles that can be fixed with the normal editing process. This a form used in 13 city courts and the five boroughs' Supreme Courts, in a city of 8 million people that is so great, you have to say it twice. :-) Seriously folks, let me fix it up a bit before it is blown up. Bearian (talk) 20:30, 2 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, czar · · 15:21, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, per WP:HASREFS and WP:HASPOT. --Edcolins (talk) 20:59, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Question I checked google books and google scholar and found several uses of the "certificate of disposition" which define the term. See [9][10][11] Is this adequate notability for a Wikipedia article? Or should this be more appropriate for wiktionary?--Nowa (talk) 02:19, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The sources you identified show that there is some material out there to improve this article (beyond having a wiktionary entry, perhaps). See also In re Pedro Aricio Pichardo-Sufren (mentioned in the third reference you indicated) which discusses such a certificate of disposition:

"The only document offered into the record to prove the respondent’s deportability under section 241(a)(2)(C) of the Act was a “Certificate of Disposition,” a document issued by the criminal court indicating that the respondent was charged, pled guilty to, and was convicted of criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree."

The California Penal Code also uses this term [12], which seems to have the same meaning as in NY. --Edcolins (talk) 21:36, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I tend to err on the "keep" side, but I thought I would raise the issue.--Nowa (talk) 23:12, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, good deal of secondary source coverage, enough for a nice quality improvement project potential on this article. — Cirt (talk) 22:34, 11 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--Ymblanter (talk) 09:03, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sanjay Mukherjee

[edit]

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

non notable mid level civil servant Uncletomwood (talk) 12:15, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:18, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:18, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:N. I can't find even a singe RS. ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ ^Talk ^Email 15:56, 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 · · 15:09, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No RS found....clearly non-notable ƬheStrike Σagle ^sorties 14:16, 6 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. Mark Arsten (talk) 20:30, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Lordkipanidze Law of Economic Competition

[edit]

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

No mention about this concept on Google books([13]) or Google Scholar ([14]), no independent references Alæxis_¿question? 11:06, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:59, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:59, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or maybe merge to Lordkipanidze Revaz if anyone thinks there is information here worth preserving. Clearly not enough secondary references for a stand-alone article. Dingo1729 (talk) 15:38, 20 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 · · 06:38, 28 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 · · 15:06, 5 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 Revaz Lordkipanidze. (non-admin closure) Nathan2055^{talk - contribs} 16:03, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Lordkipanidze Theory of Competitive Equilibrium

[edit]

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

No mention about this concept on Google books([15]) or Google Scholar ([16]), no independent references. The author is only interested in Lordkipanidze Revaz and his theories.Alæxis_¿question? 11:09, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Delete or maybe merge to Lordkipanidze Revaz if anyone thinks there is information here worth preserving. Clearly not enough secondary references for a stand-alone article. Dingo1729 (talk) 15:37, 20 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 · · 06:39, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment moved from talk page: Please see very significant additional information: On the base of own argumentation for simultaneous use indexes of Lordkipanidze Law of Economic competition with HHI(Herfindahl-Hirschman Index) and Health Care Reforms(Managerial Costs in Healthcare, P. 118-134), Revaz Lordkipanidze offers theory for construction new economic system in macroeconomics of post-crisis conditions.--Lia Palavandishvili (talk) 17:51, 26 June 2013 (UTC) Please see also about HHI (The United States, Department of Justice, Herfindahl-Hirschman Index). R. Lordkipanidze made resume for Competitive Equilibrium as optimal way of marginal results of economical system.--Lia Palavandishvili (talk) 17:47, 28 June 2013 (UTC) 9comment moved from talk page by JohnCD (talk) 19:29, 28 June 2013 (UTC))[reply]
Whatever decision is reached here should also apply to Lordkipanidze Theory of Economic Relativity. DS (talk) 16:00, 13 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, czar · · 15:02, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge both into Revaz Lordkipanidze as suggested by Dingo (good idea). They are non-notable as of now, but it keeps the article histories for purposes of WP:REFUND and WP:CHEAP. Bearian (talk) 21:16, 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 redirect to Kirishitan. Sandstein 12:51, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Persecution of Christians in Japan

[edit]

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

Subject better covered in the article Kirishitan. Add redirect. Wkharrisjr (talk) 14:08, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:19, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:19, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:19, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to Kirishitan. Some small parts of this article may be useful, but Kirishitan is certainly the already-existing article on this topic. -- 202.124.74.9 (talk) 11:09, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: This cannot be merged because the article is unreferenced. SL93 (talk) 17:20, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
REdirect to Kirishitan. The only thing to merge is the book cited at the end of the article, which is a relatively popular accounbt of the subject from an evangelical POV. The target article is much fuller, so that the subject of this discussion is unlikel;y to add anything. Peterkingiron (talk) 10:25, 8 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 Fox Sports (Australia)#Combat sports. postdlf (talk) 01:46, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hammer Time (TV series)

[edit]

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

Article about an MMA TV show with no significant independent coverage and no claims of notability. Jakejr (talk) 16:17, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. —Mike moral ♪♫ 20:18, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —Mike moral ♪♫ 20:18, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:44, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I found nothing to show this show meets any notability criteria.Mdtemp (talk) 16:34, 24 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 · · 17:26, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Fox Sports (Australia)#Combat sports Looks like the usual "desk and debate for a half hour" show seen on many sports networks, but dealing with MMA; nothing extraordinary about this programme. Nate • (chatter) 05:00, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as above--not notable but could be a search term. JJL (talk) 19:06, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Mdtemp; I found no notibility for this one and I don't see any reason to redirect this one. Nevertheless, delete. WisconsinBoyClevelandRocks228844 (talk) 03:01, 2 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, Ged UK 12:32, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Fox Sports (Australia)#Combat sports - this shouldn't have been relisted, in my opinion, as no one is calling for the article's retention. It has no particular notability, but is a potentially valid search term. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 13:08, 5 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) 02:19, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Chagos Islands national football team

[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Twice deleted via AFD and numerous times via G4, however the article was restored and so I am bringing this here for further discussion. This is not a "national team", it is a team made up players from the diaspora from a small island in the Indian Ocean. They appear to have played two friendly games and they have not received any significant coverage. There is no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 09:41, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 09:44, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and Salt. No references, have not played a competive match (including Viva games). Murry1975 (talk) 09:53, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Nothing seems to have changed since the last deletion. The N.F.-Board lists them and as having played friendly matches, but that does not amount to WP:GNG. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 11:22, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not notable, an amateur team that hasn't played a competitive match, if we delete this one then we should delete all the other "teams" associated with the association this team is affiliated with Seasider91 (talk) 17:05, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt - completely non-notable - not a national football team in any rational way -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 17:44, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:54, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment just to say the federation is the NF board In my opinion any so called national team affiliated with this association is not notable. Seasider91 (talk) 17:14, 6 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) 02:20, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The People's Republic of China- Propaganda in Africa

[edit]

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

This article is drivel, it's basically an essay built on several sourced facts put together with the sole purpose of promoting the POV of the creator. The few relevant and unbiased facts can be added to Africa–China relations, the rest should be deleted. eh bien mon prince (talk) 08:17, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Strong WP:OR concerns, and in an article about propaganda, it's ironic that the entire article also reads like a propaganda piece for the Chinese government. As the nominator said, there is already an article on this, Africa-China relations, and that is an article with a much better title, (this one isn't even a valid redirect) a much more neutral writing style, and is mostly devoid of OR. In other words, the exact opposite of this. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 13:12, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I've raised it on the article's talk page quite some time ago, although it remains unanswered... There are many WP:OR issues, because the cited sentences are used to "pad" the article up while not addressing the actual topic (the rest is the user's own concluding remarks). If there's things to salvage, it should be merged into Africa-China relations. --Cold Season (talk) 16:59, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:48, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:48, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - It is just a piece of propaganda material. STSC (talk) 21:35, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - It reads like an essay made up of the author's personal opinion, with multiple instances of WP:editorializing and unsourced conclusions. Strong WP:POV and WP:OR concerns. -Zanhe (talk) 18:57, 9 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 Iranian Azerbaijanis. The sense of the discussion is that this content fork should be merged together with the parent article. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 13:32, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Azerbaijanis in Tehran

[edit]

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

Per WP:CFORK. Delete this article. Move or merge necessary/non-redundant parts/reliable citations to the main article Iranian Azerbaijanis. This article has nothing new if you compare it with the main article, except some new photos in the infobox. It can be moved to a new section in main article if necessary. Zyma (talk) 05:45, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Azerbaijanis in Tehran is like The following articles.

Armenians in Georgia → Armenians in Tbilisi
Armenians in Turkey → Armenians in Istanbul
Armenians in Azerbaijan → Armenians in Baku
Turks in Germany → Turks in Berlin
Turks in Italy → Turks in Moena
Ukrainians in Russia → Ukrainians in Kuban
Filipino American → Filipinos in Hawaii
Korean American → Korean immigration to Hawaii
Croats of Serbia → Croats of Vojvodina
Norwegian American → Norwegian Dakotan
Norwegian American → Norwegian Minnesotan
Arabs in Germany → Arabs in Berlin
Iranian Arabs → Arabs in Khorasan
German American → German Texan
Japanese American → Japanese in Hawaii
Iranian Azerbaijanis → Azerbaijanis in Tehran
and, and, and ... in the Azerbaijanis in Tehran article use valid sources.

Azerbaijanis in tehran Been living in the past (See Tehran Article)→ Tehran finally became the capital of Iran in 1795, when the Qajar king Agha Mohammad Khan was crowned in the city. It remains the capital to this day → one of Iranian Turks Agha Mohammad Khan from Qajar is capital of Iran To date. more of Iranian Azerbaijanis famous people born and live Tehran. Azerbaijanis represent about 25% of the inhabitants. With a population of about 8,300,000 and about 14 million metropolitan area, it is Iran's largest city and urban area, and one of the largest cities in Western Asia. Azerbaijanis can speak persian and Azerbaijanis so News sites to Persian The official languages Covers Azeis in Tehran. Please see * 20 milion Enumeration in the persian Alphabet

Sources for population → 25% Tehran^[1] 30.3%^[2] – 33%^[3]^[4] of Tehran Province's population.

^ "Tehran". Looklex Encyclopaedia. Retrieved 2013-07-04.
^ National Bibliography Number: 2887141 / plan review and assess the country's culture indicators (indicators Ghyrsbty) {report}: Tehran Province / General Council of the Order of the Executive Director is responsible for planning and policy: Mansoor Vaezi; run company experienced researchers Us - ISBN 978-600-6627-42-7 * Publication Status: Tehran - Institute Press book, published in 1391 * appearance: 296 p: table (the color), diagrams (colored part)
^ http://www.pen-kurd.org/englizi/varia/state-of-minorities-in-iran.html
^ "Chapter 2 - The Society and Its Environment: People and Languages: Turkic-speaking Groups: Azarbaijanis" in A Country Study: Iran Library of Congress Country Studies, Table of Contents, last accessed 19 November 2008

and please rean other sources in the article.

--Samək^Talk 12:58, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Not helpful and specific. Your article is a fork of the main article. Nothing new or special. Just another version of infobox plus a short lead cited by some random sources, redundant sources and non-RSs. Instead of having forks, redundant and unnecessary new articles, you can expand the main article Iranian Azerbaijanis or Tehran article. There is no need for this article. In your above comment, you didn't provide any good reason for keeping your article. Mostly irrelevant and random stuffs/links. We talk about this article not those wiki articles. Also we have already Iranian Azerbaijanis like those articles that mentioned by you. Any good and specific reason to keep this fork? Zyma (talk) 13:17, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If There are this article
Armenians in Georgia → Armenians in Tbilisi
Armenians in Turkey → Armenians in Istanbul
Armenians in Azerbaijan → Armenians in Baku
Turks in Germany → Turks in Berlin
Turks in Italy → Turks in Moena
Ukrainians in Russia → Ukrainians in Kuban
Filipino American → Filipinos in Hawaii
Korean American → Korean immigration to Hawaii
Croats of Serbia → Croats of Vojvodina
Norwegian American → Norwegian Dakotan
Norwegian American → Norwegian Minnesotan
Arabs in Germany → Arabs in Berlin
Iranian Arabs → Arabs in Khorasan
German American → German Texan
Japanese American → Japanese in Hawaii
So Stay Iranian Azerbaijanis → Azerbaijanis in Tehran-- I've used the best sources. 3-4 milion Azeis in Tehran very Worthy for stay. Have you looked at the source. many Artists, athletes, politicians, ministers, Supreme Leader of Iran, are Azeris in Tehran. Also I added Other notables--Samək^Talk 13:37, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. You just converted some lines into a whole article. All of them can be merged with the main article. Repetitive statements and a bunch of similar sources. Main article can include all of them, even there is no need for a new section on the main article for those info, but you can create new section if you think it's necessary. The particular difference between Azerbaijanis in Tehran and Iranian Azerbaijanis is: Another version of Iranian Azerbaijanis infobox. Zyma (talk) 15:27, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:46, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Azerbaijan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:46, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:47, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to Iranian Azerbaijanis- per Zyma. No one has doubt that there is an important community of Azerbaijanis in Tehran but this article contains nothing. A clear content forking.Farhikht (talk) 18:01, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect per Zyma, along with Turks in Hamadan (?!). --HistorNE (talk) 02:34, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Iranian Azerbaijanis Kabirat (talk) 12:05, 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.

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) 01:45, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Skywise (airline)

[edit]

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

This is apparently an airline that has not even started up. There is no apparent evidence of notability. Perhaps after it is in operation and there is reliable independent coverage, then an article might be appropriate. I am One of Many (talk) 05:36, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:TOOSOON. Erpert ^{Who is this guy? | Wanna talk about it?} 07:50, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:27, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:27, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:27, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:27, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: It might not even happen. SL93 (talk) 17:14, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:CRYSTAL: Wikipedia is not a collection of product announcements.--FoxyOrange (talk) 07:09, 9 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--Ymblanter (talk) 07:18, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Las Madrinas Ball

[edit]

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

Just a débutante ball no different from hundreds of others in ever American city. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 16:54, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:06, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:07, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ (Changing to Keep, see below) Google News Archive[17] found just the expected society items in the LA Times - most of them from decades ago when newspapers had society pages. Not notable, and I couldn't think of a suitable redirect. Children's Hospital Los Angeles is the only possibility, and it doesn't have anything about its charitable support organizations. --MelanieN (talk) 01:37, 24 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, Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 00:27, 28 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 · · 05:35, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: This is notable per [18], [19], and [20]. SL93 (talk) 04:18, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- This is an old prestigious ball according to the sources. The LIFE Magazine source from 1958 was written because for the first time ever until that year, pictures were released of the ball. The nomination statement is nonsense. SL93 (talk) 04:23, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I am changing my opinion to Keep based on the excellent sources found by SL93. I have added them all to the article, along with a substantial expansion and rewrite. (In fairness to the nominator, the article as originally written conveyed no idea of the significance of the ball.) --MelanieN (talk) 02:28, 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. L Faraone 00:32, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Panjeta

[edit]

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

This article has not been sourced since its creation in May 2010, and I can't find any reliable sources that refer to a Jat clan (gotra) of this name. Fails WP:GNG. Sitush (talk) 13:51, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:10, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:10, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I found nothing to verify this. SL93 (talk) 16:02, 21 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, Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 00:34, 28 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 · · 05:34, 5 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) 02:20, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unorthodox (Joey Badass song)

[edit]

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

Non notable song that fails WP:NSONGS and has never charted. Koala15 (talk) 00:08, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect - The song definitly fails WP:NSONGS due to lack of charting, but it is a plausible search term so a redirect to either Joey Badass or Summer Knights would be fine. STATic message me! 00:47, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Changing vote to keep due to coverage in reliable sources now provided in article. STATic message me! 03:44, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Redirect. No evidence of notability. Pburka (talk) 03:36, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Withdraw. Pburka (talk) 23:26, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2013 July 5. Snotbot t • c » 04:13, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:37, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There seem to be sufficient sources available to expand this article beyond a stub. I added some of these links to the page; subject appears to meet WP:NSONGS. Gong show 20:43, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I have already added enough information to the article for it to reach Start-Class, it is no longer a stub. So there is no need to delete the article. 11Block |talk 19:15, 8 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) 01:44, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

MONOGRAM Technologies

[edit]

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

CSD declined. No indication of notability. Dewritech (talk) 11:29, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Slovakia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:12, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:12, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:12, 28 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) 04:06, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

delete -a random software company without coverage of notability from independent sources. - Altenmann >t 05:23, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - created by single-purpose account Special:Floatingatuin, and look at some of the "sources": they do not seem to even mention the company, let alone support assertions made in the article. Perhaps a shame, since European IT seems under-represented in the English Wikipedia, but evidently there is not even an article on this company in the Slovak Wikipedia? W Nowicki (talk) 22:36, 5 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) 01:44, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Golf Kingdoms

[edit]

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

No evidence of satisfying Wikipedia's notability guidelines. Sourced to two press releases, a very short review on a site of uncertain notability, and another review on an amateur site run by a group of bloggers. The article was proposed for deletion over a year ago, but the PROD was removed by an editor who wrote "Notability is questionable, but the article actually shows some reviews". (Although it is not in itself a reason for deletion, it is worth mentioning that the article was created by an editor who has since been indefinitely blocked as a spammer, and it does seem likely that this article was written with promotional purpose.) JamesBWatson (talk) 09:39, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 15:50, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:50, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No reliable [[WP::VG/RS]] hits. I see a 148apps.com review, which is not listed as VG/RS, but their editorial makes them situational at least. appadvice.coms is similar, but doesn't appear reliable, more like a blog. Besides press releases and directory entries, that's all I see though, not enough to pass WP:GNG. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 17:44, 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) 03:58, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No coverage in reliable sources. -- Whpq (talk) 16:19, 9 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. Mark Arsten (talk) 20:28, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Penny Wilson

[edit]

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

I have been trying to improve this article, have added some tags and hyperlinks, and cleaned up the article generally. I don't know where to go from here. The only source of the article is a forum post, and I have tried to find others, but the only other sources are to her own website (which says nothing of her life) and to websites selling her books. A user, who was probably Wilson herself, also added some unverified information to this article earlier this year. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dan12w (talk • contribs)

Delete, if you can't find any info on her in reliable sources, then she's probably not notable. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 14:11, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:38, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:38, 28 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) 03:57, 5 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. No delete !voting activity after two relists. (non-admin closure) Dusti^*poke* 03:22, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Khaled 'Bassbaba' Sumon

[edit]

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

The article about a person which name is so confusing. There are no reference from any reliable sources and notability problem. I think it's breaks multiple Wikipedia rules. Leela Bratee 08:46, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Evano1van(எவனோ ஓருவன்) 12:25, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. Evano1van(எவனோ ஓருவன்) 12:25, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep ~~Delete~~ - Notability is a problem. We must include his band Aurthohin in this discussion. The question is, do any of their 6 albums have a commercial release? I think not, and don't find any reviews in reliable sources. Thanks, Anand ^{(talk page)} 13:10, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Did you even take a look at the article? --Zayeem ^(talk) 13:33, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I did, and carefully too. However I see that I could have been wrong because I skipped the Bengali language reviews and was looking for a commercial/major record label. Please add your comments and I will revert my vote accordingly. Thanks, Anand ^{(talk page)} 14:57, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The references are all significant coverages about the artiste from reliable sources. (You can ask for translation of the Bengali sources from these wikipedians). Aside from his band, he has three albums in his name,Megher Deshe, Boka Manushta, Ekhon Ami under the labels G-series (both 1st and 2nd) and Agniveena respectively, both being some of the major record labels in Bangladesh. Thanks.--Zayeem ^(talk) 16:54, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Apologies for my error - vote reverted. This should also be more than sufficient to close the discussion. Thanks, Anand ^{(talk page)} 17:04, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, thanks for your reconsideration. --Zayeem ^(talk) 17:49, 21 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) 02:44, 28 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) 03:53, 5 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) 01:43, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ami Adini

[edit]

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

Non-notable person. Only two references actually mention him, one is a primary routine source and the other authored by a co-worker. PROD removed by IP who added a large amount of also-unreferenced material. Searching in google is finding many non-independent sources, but no independent ones. Stuartyeates (talk) 02:41, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This article should not be deleted - it is a work in progress. The finished article will include a significant list of publications and data on Adini's works which are used by educational institutions taken from his overall education, experience and knowledge in the field he has been a pioneer in. MDHwriter(talk) 20:00, 27 June 2013 — Mdhwriter (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

This article should not be deleted. The article is currently missing relevant information on the use of Ami Adini's publications and findings in the field of water clean up and brownfields both for educational purposes and environmental projects both in Israel and in the United States. This article should be labeled as a work in progress and completed. Mggpublishing 03:42, 28 June 2013 (UTC) — Mggpublishing (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Comment: I've just discovered Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Ami Adini. Stuartyeates (talk) 03:46, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. czar · · 06:43, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. czar · · 06:44, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. czar · · 06:44, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment a list of publications have been added, perhaps from http://www.amiadini.com/newsletter-archive.html What is needed is not publications by this person or their company, but by independent third parties with in depth detail about this person. Stuartyeates (talk) 07:31, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Ami Adini’s research and actions have resulted in environmental improvements both in California and Israel and a multi-million-dollar government supported enterprise for concentrating on petroleum cleanup. Hopefully this endeavor will be implemented in other states besides California but even if it doesn’t it can safely be said that the California environment and therefore the lives of 38 million people were improved because of Ami Adini’s research and actions.
Mass media organizations tend to specialize in destruction, crimes, scandals and controversy as they feel those items are newsworthy, unfortunately Google is not excluded from this, but I believe Wikipedia, being an encyclopedia and not a news organization, should also feature figures that have greatly assisted the environment or others.
Stuartyeates I understand you are just trying to improve Wikipedia by counting number of external references and I’m researching additional references to include in the article but if this results in major figures that have assisted the environment not being featured than I am convinced Wikipedia does not have firm rules applies to this situation. Mggpublishing 22:43, 01 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have added some independent references and am in the process of adding more independent references. --Mdhwriter (talk) 02:53, 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) 03:50, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nominator. An article being a work in progress is not a reason to keep it; the vast majority of all articles could be said to be in that stage. Two clear SPAs trying to keep the article - one has a name that is a clear violation of the username policy, the other also suggests a COI, or paid editing. Anyway, to the merits of this article: there are simply no non-trivial, non-routine, in-depth, secondary sources on this person, and thus he fails WP:GNG. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 13:16, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominiator. The whole entry is irrelevant drivel that has nothing to do with the person the article is about. The parts that are about the author sound like an advertisement. A few publications and newspaper mentions don't make somebody notable. --Tobias1984 (talk) 12:31, 10 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 and redirect to List of diplomatic missions of Greece. This is also in line with previous AfD nominations of embassies. Note that Embassy of Greece, Kiev is the only article affected by the decision, since others were not properly nominated (no template etc). Feel free to renominate.--Ymblanter (talk) 07:08, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Embassy of Greece, Kiev

[edit]

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

fails WP:GNG and WP:ORG. previous recent AfDs have shown there is no inherent notability to embassies. this article is merely a listing of location and non notable ambassadors.

also nominating:

Redirect to List of diplomatic missions of Greece, etc. or Keep. No need to delete. Pburka (talk) 03:38, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"no need to delete" is not a reason for keeping. you haven't demonstrated how notability is met. WP:JUSTAVOTE. LibStar (talk) 03:50, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WP:Afd directs us to consider alternative to deletion. I suggested that such an alternative was appropriate in this case, but I have no bias against keeping the article. Pburka (talk) 03:57, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

in order to support keep, you need to demonstrate how a notability criterion is met. LibStar (talk) 04:05, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'll try to express myself more clearly. I oppose the proposed deletion as unnecessary. I'll be happy whether the article is merged or kept. I have no bias against keeping the article. If other editors should express opinions indicating that the article should be kept, my suggestion to redirect should not in any way impede that. Pburka (talk) 04:18, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to appropriate locations per precedent from previous embassy AfDs (I don't remember and am too lazy to look up at the moment). User:LibStar, would anyone complain if you just redirected them? I don't think a single non-notable embassy article has actually been deleted, instead all redirected. Ansh666 07:14, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

several has been deleted: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Embassy of Honduras, Ottawa, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Embassy of Gabon, Ottawa, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Embassy of Colombia, Ankara, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Embassy of Latvia, Kiev. LibStar (talk) 07:22, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, those had no redirect targets. I meant the ones with valid redirect targets. Ansh666 07:26, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:35, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:35, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge. While these embassies may not qualify for stand-alone articles, content within them would enhance the following related articles.

– Northamerica1000^(talk) 19:37, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of diplomatic missions for the relevant countries. Finnegas (talk) 22:56, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge or redirect per WP:OUTCOMES and WP:CHEAP. In the past, we either keep or try to send the information to a target. That way it keeps the article history and allows for a WP:REFUND. Bearian (talk) 21:11, 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--Ymblanter (talk) 05:49, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Fury 66

[edit]

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

I found no coverage for this band and the article is unreferenced. Fails WP:MUSIC. SL93 (talk) 02:56, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:33, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:33, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. From looking online I can see that they definitely have local notability, and they might have had some influence on other notable artists, but there's no coverage of them so to meet the WP:GNG, and nothing either regarding their albums or the labels they released them under. — Frankie (talk) 18:12, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:BAND. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 04:41, 6 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.