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 Ender's Game#Video game. Nothing left to merge. (non-admin closure) czar · · 04:38, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ender's Game: Battle Room[edit]

Ender's Game: Battle Room (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

WP:PERMASTUB; this has two citations to Newsweek and one to the publisher's website, and it is extremely unlikely for more sourced info to develop. Ypnypn (talk) 23:57, 19 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) 01:42, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:42, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: I'm leaning more towards merging and redirecting. I do want to warn people that there are some false hits such as this one where we get mentions of the upcoming (and completely awesome looking) film, so be careful about searching. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:51, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Ender's_Game#Video_game. I can find announcements of it being planned and a few of it being cancelled, but that's really where this ends. I think this merits a mention on the main page, but that's pretty much it. It doesn't merit its own page at this time, if ever. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:57, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge / Redirect, for reasons that have already been explained pretty well. TheBlueCanoe 03:00, 26 June 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) 18:42, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Menugate[edit]

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

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

One week-long political controversy, does not meet notability guidelines. Slac speak up! 23:27, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. Well it's only been a week! I was surprised to see so many media references actually - this first appeared in List of scandals with "-gate" suffix and I was just going to delete the entry as a minor affair until I checked how many hits it got. Looks to be at least as significant as Utegate as regards media attention, and combined with Gillard's sexist-feminism speech and the Sattler sacking it's turned into quite a saga. Given the level of media attention Gillard is drawing in the run-up to the election, who knows how long we'll continue to see "Menugate" reverberating on the front page? --Pete (talk) 23:57, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - clear violation of WP:NOTNEWS as far as I am concerned. The speech and Sattler's sacking were entirely unrelated and it would be blatant synthesis to rope them together and claim they were one in the same. If "menugate" (a term used by only a couple of media outlets) has a longer term WP:EFFECT (though I don't think it will) then it can always be recreated. Stalwart111 01:31, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I dunno about a couple of news sources. ABC, Murdoch and Fairfax - which have most of the market - are currently running stories. It's obviously widely covered within Australia and current. Google is showing a host of smaller outlets. Not that I'm carrying a torch for the article, but if Utegate marked Turnbull's demise, then Menugate seems to be ushering Gillard out. --Pete (talk) 01:40, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I think it would be fair to say they did run stories, but except for the Mal Brough follow-on there's been virtually nothing beyond those first few days. What else can you say about a crude joke other than someone made it and some people who shouldn't have been involved in its making had to front the media and stifle their laughter? I'm not convinced it's fair to say this has/will have an impact on her broader career, even in the context of an election campaign that might be the end of said career. Stalwart111 06:43, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't get the impression they were stifling laughter. What was interesting was the way Gillard jumped on it and the way it backfired when she was attempting to portray herself as the target of sexist attacks. The big drop in support amongst men that followed just fanned the fires. So it's part of a wider and longer story. We're seeing the term continue in the media. Anyway, this thing's got a few more days to run, let's see how it goes. --Pete (talk) 07:40, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

“Julia Gillard Kentucky Fried Quail – Small Breasts, Huge Thighs & A Big Red Box” is not a sexist attack Pete? Djapa Owen (talk) 08:09, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

First off, it wasn't intended for her eyes. How can you hit a target you aren't aiming for? Second, she blamed people who had nothing to do with it. She was left with egg on her face and her only response politicobabble from the "Yes, Minister" handbook. All she had left was innuendo and allegation. No evidence, you see. That's how it tied in - the menu itself was a private joke, but Gillard made it into something notable. --Pete (talk) 10:26, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

So if someone insults you behind your back that is not offensive? If you discuss a woman's genitalia when she is not there that is not sexist? Strange values there. Of course that still has no impact on whether the Menugate article has merit or not, but then half the discussion on this page does not relate to that either. Djapa Owen (talk) 12:52, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@Pete - I think there's a few of them who would have had a good laugh at the menu in private. It was meant as a joke and satirical menus are a staple of food humour. There are well-known sandwich shops where you can get yourself a Justin Bieber butty or a Lindsay Lohan sub. This was just a bit cruder. But yeah, plenty of time for others to weight in. Stalwart111 08:58, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't see anyone laughing. Nobody was reported as laughing. They all seemed genuinely appalled. It was appalling. --Pete (talk) 10:26, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, maybe it's just a matter of me not reading that much into it. Some people created a crude joke and got busted for it. They called it a "light-hearted joke" and I'm inclined to believe that was the intention, rather than that they intended to be appalling (though that may have been the outcome). Stalwart111 11:55, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The evidence doesn't support this. There's nothing to link the menu with anybody but the restaurateur - or even the fundraiser. The fellow who eventually made it public did so as part of the sexism storm that Gillard had created. The second time he had sent it to Labor people and this time it was used to attack the Liberals in the precise context of the sexism/feminism row. This is Tony Abbott's Liberals, this is what they're like and I think the real risk for Australia is if Mr Abbott was ever Prime Minister it wouldn't be a question of what's on fundraising menus, we would see this lack of respect for women littered through all of his government policy documents," the PM said.[1] If Gillard hadn't made a fuss, thinking that she had indeed "busted" the Libs, then there would have been no "Menugate". This is more than just a joke menu. This is part of the wider picture. --Pete (talk) 12:27, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, that's kind of my point - that quote is from the restaurateur. He created it as a joke with his son. Someone posted it on Facebook and the ex-employee got his hands on it and suggested it had been prepared for a fundraiser based on his experience of similar menus being created previously. Whether any of that is true? Who knows. But I still don't think it was originally created for anything other than a silly laugh. Stalwart111 14:03, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Actually it's Julia Gillard's quote. That's what makes this more than a silly joke. We might all chuckle at How Green was My Cactus, but none of the jokes there make it onto the front page as a Prime Ministerial speech. --Pete (talk) 21:07, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I meant the "light-hearted joke" quote. Yours is from Gillard of course. Stalwart111 23:46, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete A minor story in the broader scheme of things. Proved that there are people with poor taste in society. But we all know that already. Just some excited political animals wanting to document everything they get worked up about. HiLo48 (talk) 01:43, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Considering that the first mention of the term was by an ALP attack squad aimed at Mal Brough, I dunno. Different sides of politics get worked up about things the other side would like hushed up, it seems to me. Perhaps we should steer a middle course. The criterion for inclusion is whether we think people will go looking for the term in times to come. If we don't have an entry for it, then their search will fail. Doesn't mean we have to have an article for everything, but hey, storage is cheap. The criteria is notability, not whether anyone personally thinks it should be in or out to suit their political preferences, don't you agree? --Pete (talk) 07:40, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:39, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:39, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:39, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per Stalwart111 and HiLo48: this fails WP:NOTNEWS. Nick-D (talk) 08:29, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as per WP:NOTNEWS. Doctorhawkes (talk) 09:48, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge, if it does not warrant an article in its own right, perhaps into [Julia Gillard, section Gender politics] as this is a significant demonstration of the moral character of the Coalition's senior ranks. Djapa Owen (talk) 11:33, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Except that it was the restaurant owner, not "the Coalition's senior ranks". Even if it were, how would merging to Julia Gillard be relevant? She was only one of the people "attacked" by the menu. If we had an article for the restaurant, we could merge it there. That's about it. Stalwart111 12:25, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Was it the restaurant owner? Or was he protecting members of the party he donates to? We will probably never know, but I'd recommend not believing everything you hear about events like this. HiLo48 (talk) 01:21, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Who knows? We can only go on what he's said and it may well be as you say. But either way, a merger as suggested would create major WP:SYNTH and WP:WEIGHT issues and wouldn't be appropriate. Stalwart111 01:43, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yep. HiLo48 (talk) 01:47, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as per WP:NOTNEWS. --Surturz (talk) 04:09, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete No lasting notability pbp 19:12, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like we can call this one can't we? It looks like it is a great excuse for a debate but not much of a topic for an article. Djapa Owen (talk) 12:29, 26 June 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. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 10:10, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nathan Bedford Forrest II[edit]

Nathan Bedford Forrest II (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

May not satisfy WP:BIO. Notability is not inherited. Edison (talk) 23:20, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:36, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:36, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. It's my understanding that a Grand Dragon was the head of the KKK within an entire state. Therefore seems notable enough to me in his own right. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:34, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I have not seen a guideline or even a "common outcome" convention that a state-level head of a racist organization gets inherent notability. Is there a better keep argument than "Seems notable?" Edison (talk) 19:43, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • There isn't one. It merely seems like common sense. The fact the organisation he headed was racist is utterly irrelevant to his notability. The fact he was a senior member of a notable organisation is what makes him notable. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:11, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep -- though repugnant, article in the NYTs plus being head of a college (WP:PROF#C6, common outcome) gives him notability (notoriety?) in his own right. -- Michael Scott Cuthbert (talk) 20:30, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Delete: First off, the GNG explicitly debars quotes from a subject on another issue as supporting the subject's notability; since the Times article isn't about Forrest, it doesn't support his notability. Secondly, the "college" was an obscure startup that lasted only four years before going belly up and being sold to the Klan, after which it folded the next year -- and by the bye, Forrest was the "Secretaty" and "Business Manager" of the institution, not its president -- not enough, IMHO, to support WP:PROF. Finally, I agree with Edison; there's nothing about being the state chapter head of a national organization that gives anyone a presumptive pass to the GNG. I just don't think he passes the bar. Ravenswing 04:02, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep -- Pres. of Lanier University, head of a nation-wide group, the Sons of Confederate Veterans and a Grand Dragon in the Second era KKK - I say thats enough to establish notability. I think his tenure as head of the SCV is perhaps his most notable claim to fame.--Bellerophon5685 (talk) 05:43, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Here are some interesting sources on his role in the Tulsa race riot:

The Nightmare of Dreamland, New Article Reveals Tulsa Founder's Violent Past and Role in 1921 Race Riot --Bellerophon5685 (talk) 05:50, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• • • Neither, of course, supporting his notability; both articles are about another fellow, the first one according only a couple sentences to Forrest, the second just a single sentence: mentions that short are not, as the GNG explicitly comments, long enough to meet its provisions. Ravenswing 06:23, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep nomination based on misunderstanding of WP:NOTINHERITED and a complete lack of application of common sense. Barney the barney barney (talk) 18:53, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Besides the irrelevant ad hominem attack, what reasons do you present for keeping the article, Barney³? Edison (talk) 23:52, 21 June 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) 18:48, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Stu Mason[edit]

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

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

I found no coverage. Fails WP:CREATIVE. SL93 (talk) 22:56, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:29, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:30, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete -- I am somewhat doubtful whether the magazine that he allegedly edits is notable; and I note no link to it in the artilce. Even if it was, I do not think that this would make its editor notable. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:12, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: The link to this "magazine" is broken, and in any event there aren't any reliable sources discussing it, and in any event even if the magazine cleared the notability standards of which it falls far, far short, notability is not inherited. Article pretty much the sole Wikipedia activity of a SPA who vanished years ago, orphaning it. Fails the GNG and about any other notability criterion. Ravenswing 04:08, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - The claim to notability is being an editor of a magazine, but the magazine is not notable. -- Whpq (talk) 16:11, 24 June 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) 18:55, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

OZONE[edit]

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

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

Someone's personal hobby project. Not notable; mentioned once on osnews.com, where users can submit posts. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 22:55, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 23:17, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete agreed, might have been interesting in 1997, but seems like development stopped in 2004 and never became notable in the next 9 years. W Nowicki (talk) 16:07, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Vaporware is vapor. No reliable sources, article substantively unimproved in six years. (Come to that, much like the vaporware.) Ravenswing 04:12, 21 June 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. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 10:11, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Teens[edit]

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

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

Fails WP:BAND. Sockmaster evading block. see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Europefan Dennis Bratland (talk) 22:47, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:24, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:24, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy Delete - Based on G5. If we need a consensus otherwise, it clearly fails WP:BAND as there is no WP:SIGCOV in WP:RS. It appears that this was also spammed into Polish and German Wikipedia articles. --FoolMeOnce2Times (talk) 02:18, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In 1978, the band got German famous award Bravo Otto. The band was the first boy band in Germany. This makes the band enough relevant. 178.11.184.96 (talk) 21:11, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• spiegel.de: Rock n Roll im Kinderzimmer (German) article by magazine Spiegel 178.11.184.96 (talk) 21:13, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note that 178.11.184.96 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) is a sockpuppet evading the block of the article's creator. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Europefan. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 21:17, 20 June 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) 18:53, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sportscast Stars Training[edit]

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

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

Appears to fail WP:GNG and WP:ORG. SarahStierch (talk) 22:23, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:22, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:22, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as spam. -- Whpq (talk) 16:23, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Spam and not notable per WP:CORP Sherwood10 (talk) 15:55, 25 June 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. Mark Arsten (talk) 18:52, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Cabinet rank[edit]

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

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

Fails WP:DICDEF. The substantive content of this article is about the supposed "ranking" of the Cabinet of the United Kingdom, based on this list of Cabinet members. All references in the article are to the Daily Mail, which is not the most reliable of sources. There do not appear to be any references which support the Mail's thesis that the list has any official significance, and, as such, I would consider it to be misleading (if not downright inaccurate) content. Delete as nominator, without predjudice to mentioning the Mail's attempt at a species of Kremlinology in the Daily Mail article. Tevildo (talk) 21:16, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:16, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep This is not a word or dictionary style entry. The idea that there is a formal ranking of the minsters in the Cabinet is not an invention of the Daily Mail. See Establishing the order of precedence in Cabinet for corroboration. See also WP:BEFORE as there are obvious alternatives to deletion. Warden (talk) 11:30, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:SOFIXIT. AlexTiefling (talk) 13:59, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral. Hennessy's book is a much better source than the Mail (anything is a much better source than the Mail), and, as a minimum, we should change the sources in the article to reflect this. However, he only cites three ministers over the course of the 20th century who have expressed concerns about their position on the list; more importantly, he does not establish that the list has any official significance. Most of the substantive content of the article as it stands, derived from the Mail, should go (in my opinion), perhaps to be replaced with a summary of Hennessy's text. Will that leave us with enough for a full article? Tevildo (talk) 19:07, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep- Category:National cabinets Shows there's likely more that could be covered there. Dru of Id (talk) 17:07, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per WP:SNOW and WP:OUTCOMES. It's a weak article -- little more than a stub -- but notable. Bearian (talk) 18:05, 26 June 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 Redirected to Nikkei CNBC#Former shows; non-admin closure. Nate • (chatter) 06:08, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Tokyo Market Wrap[edit]

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

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

Delete article has been one sentence for 6 years with no assertion of notability. UnrepentantTaco (talk) 19:35, 19 June 2013 (UTC) [Edit reverted as per WP:BE and [2].  Unscintillating (talk) 13:40, 23 June 2013 (UTC)][reply]

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

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:13, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirected to Nikkei CNBC#Former shows; about as dry a market recap show as you can get, no lasting notability. This can be closed. Nate • (chatter) 06:08, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy Keep. Nom banned for sock puppetry, all other arguments are for Keep or Speedy Keep, and bulk of articles nominated argues for SK 2a (Vexatious nominations). Non-admin closure. -- Michael Scott Cuthbert (talk) 10:39, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Allen Lowrie[edit]

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

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

article appears to file WP:GNG and does little to establish notability. UnrepentantTaco (talk) 19:27, 19 June 2013 (UTC) [Edit reverted as per WP:BE and [3].  Unscintillating (talk) 13:42, 23 June 2013 (UTC)][reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:10, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:10, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:10, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Article needs clean up, not deletion. Lowrie is notable as an author of influential books on the carnivorous flora of Australia and for describing dozens of new Drosera and Stylidium species. Rkitko ^(talk) 13:13, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and speedy close. As the article indicates, the subject has written a standard scholarly reference work published by a university press, a clear and unrefuted assertion of notability. The nomination statement makes plain that the nominator has not even made a cursory effort to assess the subject's actual notability, but instead believes that lousy articles on notable subjects should be deleted rather than improved. This belief is clearly contrary to applicable deletion policy. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 02:26, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep: In another of these complete failures to do even the most cursory of checks as WP:BEFORE enjoins, I have just one bit of evidence to proffer: if you have doubt on the notability of the subject, do click the link in this AfD to Google Scholar. 'Nuf ced. Ravenswing 04:33, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as the author of a major reference work and other publications. -- 202.124.89.4 (talk) 10:10, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy keep: The nominator was blocked as of 06:52, 21 June 2013 for sock puppetry per a discussion "Disruptive creation of groundless AFDs, probable sockpuppetry". Also removed the vote from the nominator's nomination. Crtew (talk) 15:45, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WP:SK 2a The closer should keep in mind the large number of nominations made on a large, diverse set of articles that the nominator made on the same day.Crtew (talk) 05:33, 22 June 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) 18:57, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Donya Fiorentino[edit]

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

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

Non-notable per WP:BIO, WP:NACTOR and WP:CREATIVE. Per expired prod in 2009, WP:NOTINHERITED - neither the article itself nor the provided refs give any indication that this person is notable for anything other than her marriages. No significant coverage online from WP:Reliable sources, apart from press mentions in articles about her former husbands. Captain Conundrum (talk) 08:07, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Captain Conundrum (talk) 08:13, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:55, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:55, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:55, 12 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 · · 19:11, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - cannot see any evidence of notability.Deb (talk) 18:44, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete; while the subject's divorce from Gary Oldman appears to have received significant coverage from non-primary reliable sources, the subject of this AfD herself has not appeared to have receive significant coverage outside of the event of her divorce, therefore the subject appears to fall under WP:BLP1E. That being said the divorce itself does not appear to have received significant coverage past its completion, and thus the event does not warrant inclusion per WP:PERSISTENCE. Therefore, as no significant coverage of the subject of this AfD has yet to have been created, then I must support deletion of this article at this time, with no prejudice to recreating if such significant coverage is later created.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 18:00, 25 June 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) 18:57, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Another Choice for Black Children Adoption Agency[edit]

Another Choice for Black Children Adoption Agency (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

fails WP:ORG. nothing in gnews. found no significant third party coverage. LibStar (talk) 06:17, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:01, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:01, 5 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, Michaelzeng7 (talk) 00:51, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete No sources listed and nothing remotely notable turned up on web search. -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:12, 12 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 · · 19:09, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Actually, probably would qualify for speedy delete under a7 -- I don't consider merely receiving some government support as a significant claim to importance DGG ( talk ) 01:28, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. with no prejudice against speedy renomination (non-admin closure) czar · · 03:03, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

TeamWarfare League[edit]

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

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

I gather it has a large number of fans, but I could find no reliable third party source, nor has there been any since 2008. DGG ( talk ) 03:10, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Evano1van(எவனோ ஓருவன்) 06:42, 5 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) 14:54, 5 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 · · 06:07, 12 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 · · 19:08, 19 June 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) 18:58, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ghans Definition (Modern)[edit]

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

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

This article only contains an unsourced wiktionary definition. Falkirks^Talk 02:49, 5 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 · · 06:15, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Unsourced one line dictionary definition verging on speedy-deletable via A1. --Michig (talk) 06:56, 19 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 · · 19:07, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy A1. My best guess is that this is a POV fork of Afghan (Australia). Dricherby (talk) 21:34, 19 June 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 Houston Astros broadcasters. redirect is fine but noone has rebutted the lack of proper sourcing. Spartaz ^Humbug! 17:00, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Francisco Romero (sportscaster)[edit]

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

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

The entire article is a near direct copy from primary reference source, a fan site WP:COPYVIO. Article fails to establish any notability as per WP:BIO and WP:ENT. The two references are primary sources. I don't do the speedy delete thing but if someone wants to nominate this one I won't argue. Ad Orientem (talk) 01:37, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. czar · · 07:16, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. czar · · 07:16, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. czar · · 07:16, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. czar · · 07:16, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• He is the Spanish radio voice of the Houston Astros. Ashbeckjonathan 12:47, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
• Redirect to List of Houston Astros broadcasters if he is not notible. Ashbeckjonathan 15:39, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
• Comment' Hey, I don't think that I could do a possibility of creating Francisco Romero (broadcaster), could I? If this is considered deletion, I am going to try creating a new article as Francisco Romero (broadcaster). Ashbeckjonathan 13:31, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

The other comment is that you have other Houston Astros broadcasters, for television, such as play-by-play announcers Bill Brown and Alan Ashby, color commentators Ashby and Geoff Blum and studio hosts Kevin Eschenfelder and Bill Doleman, radio play-by-play announcer Robert Forde who replaced veteran Astros broadcasters Milo Hamilton and other former Astros broadcasters Brett Dolan and Dave Raymond and was the studio host for both the Astros and Royals radio broadcasts before moving up into the Astros radio play-by-play booth. You have other current Houston, non-Astros broadcasters, broadcasters as well. For the Texans, you have preseason announcers Joel Meyers and Spencer Tillman with Bob Allen on the sidelines and Marc Vandemeer with analyst Andre Ware and sideline reporter Rich Lord on the radio. Why is this any big deal for Romero? Even the article fails to reach nobility, there's still has to be a way to get the job done. Ashbeckjonathan 01:52, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar · · 06:23, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep as the Spanish-language play-by-play voice of a Major League Baseball team heard on the significant number of stations in the Astros' broadcast network. He crossed the verifiability and notability thresholds as the subject of coverage by multiple reliable third-party sources (like this one and this one). - Dravecky (talk) 09:41, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The first of the above links is a note, not a story, while Romero is mentioned only one time in the second one. Neither of them constitutes significant coverage. - Bbny-wiki-editor (talk) 20:17, 19 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 · · 19:03, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, otherwise, Redirect to List of Houston Astros broadcasters. - Bbny-wiki-editor (talk) 20:17, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I wouldn't go for a redirect. I don't see any issues why this article would be redirected to List of Houston Astros broadcasters. Let's say if you improve an article such as Stu Klitenic, then you would keep it as it happened in Jeff Phelps and Klitenic. In my perspective, I would not be okay with a redirect. WisconsinBoyClevelandRocks228844 (talk) 03:06, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  You don't see any issues? The article has no sources that constitute significant coverage, and no one has found any. - Bbny-wiki-editor (talk) 02:16, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  If you go with that perspective, that your opinion. I will disagree no matter what your opinion is. This is a fair discussion. WisconsinBoyClevelandRocks228844 (talk) 01:55, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, redirect. No third party sources. Hairhorn (talk) 20:08, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I don't have an opinion on whether it should be redirected or deleted. I disagree with both options. WisconsinBoyClevelandRocks228844 (talk) 21:16, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You've already voted "keep" and "redirect", under two different accounts. Hairhorn (talk) 01:51, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That doesn't make a difference. WisconsinBoyClevelandRocks228844 (talk) 02:01, 1 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. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 10:12, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Batty boy[edit]

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

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

This is a dictionary item, not a well known word that belongs in an encyclopedia. One Of Seven Billion (talk) 19:03, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Move - to Wiktionary. Notability not sufficiently established to warrant this article. Eddie.willers (talk) 19:14, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Caribbean-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:17, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:17, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:17, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. It's already at Wiktionary (see wikt:batty boy) and this article already goes beyond a dicdef. Angr (talk) 10:30, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, good amount of discussion among multiple secondary sources, — Cirt (talk) 16:25, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• The nominator's "not a well known word" is a long way wide of the mark. I have no connection with Jamaica but have been aware of this phrase for all of my adult life of forty years or so. Phil Bridger (talk) 22:29, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Move - to Wiktionary per User:One Of Seven Billion--Iniciativass (talk) 17:19, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Angr and Cirt. Good third-party sources and the discussion of the cultural context around the term is suitable for wikipedia. Sprocket (talk) 05:30, 27 June 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 prejudice towards a merge discussion or renomination. Mark Arsten (talk) 18:58, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Halabos na hipon[edit]

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

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

essentially a one-sentence article that was thrown in without context and it is certainly no encyclopedic. UnrepentantTaco (talk) 18:58, 19 June 2013 (UTC) [Edit reverted as per WP:BE and [4].  Unscintillating (talk) 13:38, 23 June 2013 (UTC)][reply]

• Comment. The nomination addresses only the quality of the current article: that is not a reason for deletion. (Also, it's taken as read that the nominator supports deletion. Per WP:DISCUSSAFD, you shouldn't add a bolded !vote.) Dricherby (talk) 21:38, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:06, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Tentative keep Weak nomination rationale apart (being a stub is no reason to delete; "unencyclopedic" is a known fallacy): it is cited a lot in cuisine books [5] -it can be presumed there are reasonable sources in the original (Filipino?) language about it. --Cyclopia^talk 13:04, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Actually, it's a criteria for speedy, "no assertion of notability". UnrepentantTaco (talk) 18:40, 20 June 2013 (UTC) [Edit reverted as per WP:BE and [6].  Unscintillating (talk) 13:38, 23 June 2013 (UTC)][reply]

• WP:A7/WP:A8 (note, "No indication of importance") applies only to articles about individuals, animals, organizations, web content, event and musical recordings. In general, if you think an article matches one of the speedy deletion criteria, please speedy it instead of bringing it to AfD. Dricherby (talk) 19:44, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy close: The nominator was blocked as of 06:52, 21 June 2013 for sock puppetry per a discussion "Disruptive creation of groundless AFDs, probable sockpuppetry". Also nominator is voting inside nominations - removed. Crtew (talk) 16:37, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to Shrimp (food). It doesn't appear to have received significant coverage in reliable sources, but it does exist: [7], [8], [9]. Northamerica1000^(talk) 13:29, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. No comments other than the delete rationale but reading the article, obvious A7 Secret ^account 20:39, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Senior rahnuma Pakistan Muslim League[edit]

Senior rahnuma Pakistan Muslim League (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Unnecessary list that serves no purpose. We already have an article on the Pakistan Muslim League and articles on the politicians themselves. Mar4d (talk) 18:10, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:08, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:09, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:09, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment For those unfamiliar with Urdu, "rahnuma" is a word which refers to a leader. Mar4d (talk) 06:02, 6 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 · · 18:39, 12 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 · · 18:54, 19 June 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. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 10:14, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Lior Varona[edit]

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

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

BLP subject's notability is not established and article reads as vanity project/resume. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 18:42, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - does not appear to meet WP:N as no sources found in cursory search. Eddie.willers (talk) 18:53, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - does not cite any reliable secondary sources. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:30, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:59, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:00, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. Searches in Hebrew would seem to be appropriate, such as this one and this one. And, of course, the refs need not appear in the article itself (it is enough that they exist), or in an English language search (presuming that the cursory search referred to above was only an English language search).--Epeefleche (talk) 01:18, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Comments. From the existing content, one would expect most mentions to be in Hebrew. There is an article in the Hebrew wiki but it is not sourced. Hebrew google gives quite a lot of hits to his name ( ליאור ורונה ), suggesting that he is notable in Israel. I don't have the language skills to evaluate it further. Zero^talk 01:19, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment This source, from the article has the name spelt differently [10] (Verona rather than Varona). I can't tell if it's actually the same person or not. CaptRik (talk) 10:08, 21 June 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. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 10:14, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The European Business Club in the Russian Federation (EBC)[edit]

The European Business Club in the Russian Federation (EBC) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

fails WP:ORG. nothing in gnews. created by a 2 edit editor. LibStar (talk) 06:03, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:00, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:00, 5 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 · · 18:28, 12 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 · · 18:38, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: I found only trivial mentions. Non-notable. SL93 (talk) 00:03, 20 June 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. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 22:26, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Luis A. Cordero[edit]

Luis A. Cordero (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

WP:Autobiography with no assertion of notability per WP:BIO or WP:AUTHOR, and no significant coverage online from WP:Reliable sources. Speedy deleted once A7 and twice G11 since April, but it doesn't meet either WP:Criteria for speedy deletion now, so taking it to AFD. Captain Conundrum (talk) 06:38, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Captain Conundrum (talk) 06:40, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. Captain Conundrum (talk) 06:40, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Captain Conundrum (talk) 06:40, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. How do you know this is an autobiography? The creator's username sounds nothing like the subject's name. Erpert ^{Who is this guy? | Wanna talk about it?} 07:58, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The first two recent attempts to create this were by User talk:Luiscordero, who's been warned twice on his talk page about autobiographies. The third attempt was by the current editor, and I nominated it for speedy deletion G11. On his fourth attempt he contacted me politely at my talk page asking for review. I cleaned it up and edited it for a less promotional tone, but what's left has a problem with notability. I'm not an admin, so can't compare the original draft with the deleted ones, but I bet they're very close indeed. The level of unreferenced personal detail in the original version also suggest either autobio or close association. Just a hunch, so I'll strike through WP:AUTOBIO in the nomination rationale. Autobiography isn't a reason for deletion on its own, but it's relevant background for determining notability, IMHO. Captain Conundrum (talk) 08:13, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Hello, I am the creator and editor of Luis A. Cordero. My name is Alicia Berrios, a student at Florida International University. On my first attempt I created an account under the luiscordero because i thought I had to do it under the name of the person that I was going to be writing about. So then I fixed that problem by creating an account under my name. I also did not have references listed and little by little I completed them. I have been figuring how to do all of this the right way by every mistake I have made. Luis A. Cordero was a former president of (AILA), he has achieved many notable awards, which I have pictures of and intend to add after I get this incident resolved. I don't want to advertise about him, but I want to be neutral. I have edited the information according to the notes I received. I hope I can get the help I need to move forward. I really appreciate your time and the help.

Truly yours, Alicia Berrios — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aberrios13 (talk • contribs) 17:24, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have had a hard time navigating through Wikipedia and with the formulas for the references. Little by little I am learning my way. Thanks! Alicia Berrios — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aberrios13 (talk • contribs) 17:27, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

OMG Captain Conundrum, I just saw you edited my article and fixed my references. Thank you so much! Please advise what I need to do to improve the article. Thank you! ;) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aberrios13 (talk • contribs) 17:31, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome. There are lots of highly qualified lawyers out there, so we need WP:Secondary, WP:Reliable sources showing how he's notable enough for an encyclopaedia article per WP:Notability (people). This might be in the form of profiles, interviews or in-depth coverage, in mainstream press or law journals. Thanks, Captain Conundrum (talk) 06:22, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have a lot of articles on him from newspapers, news, journals, awards, and other sources. I need to make a list of all this and added to the article. He is notable, there is no doubt on that fact. I have to be careful so that I don't make it sound as if I am advertising. I am working on it. Thank you.

Will adding pictures of the articles, awards, journals, news, and other sources help? Please let me know. Thanks!— Preceding unsigned comment added by Aberrios13 (talk • contribs)

It sounds like you have some sort of professional connection with the man, so it would be a good idea to have a read of WP:Conflict of interest. Before you go to a lot of trouble scanning his papers, you might want to list what they are here. Quality is more important than quantity. Thanks, Captain Conundrum (talk) 15:24, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have connection with him. I have done research for this and been able to get information from newspapers archives and internet. I edited the article. I have few pictures to add, but I don't know how to do it. If there is anything else I can do, I would greatly appreciate it if you let me know. I want to complete this article to move to the next one. I have to say that this has been very challenging. Maybe we can keep in touch so that you can give me feed back in future articles. I am from Nicaragua and there are a lot of notable people, but is going to take me a long time because the information has to come from Nicaragua. Thank you for all your help. Alicia Berrios — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aberrios13 (talk • contribs) 15:32, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand the connection with Nicaragua, since the article says he's Cuban-American. But if there are reliable references from Nicaragua, then that would be great. Captain Conundrum (talk) 15:35, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I was born in Nicaragua, but I live in Miami, Florida. I study at Florida International University and a class in communication wanted us to do research on people from Miami and introduce it to Wikipedia. This article has no connection to the project from Nicaragua. Nicaragua is more of a personal project, because there is little known about important people. If I succeed at this article, then I most likely succeed with my future articles. Did you see my changes? Do you know how I can upload pictures. I am trying to figure it out. Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aberrios13 (talk • contribs) 16:02, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please ask at my talk page or see WP:HELP for questions about improving the article. Getting back to the notability question, you wrote above that it's "going to take me a long time because the information has to come from Nicaragua". Which information about this Cuban American needs to come from Nicaragua? Captain Conundrum (talk) 16:25, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think you are understanding me. The Nicaraguan project which will take me a long time has "nothing" to do with the Cuban American attorney. This are two different projects. Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aberrios13 (talk • contribs) 16:53, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well this article may be deleted then, if it's not finished within the week, since WP:AFD discussions like this typically run for a week. It's better to take your time on one article, and then move on to another one, rather than work on many articles at once. We could always move this one to a WP:Subpage of your user page, and then you could take as long as you like to improve it.

Also, please remember to sign your posts here, as explained at your talk page. Thanks, Captain Conundrum (talk) 20:01, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Good Morning Captain Conundrum, please review my article because I have made changes. What other changes do you want me to make? I am neutral.Alicia De Los Angeles Berrios 15:01, 11 June 2013 (UTC)Alicia Berrios

No changes have been made since we had that discussion above. Captain Conundrum (talk) 15:04, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I edited the area you said (Which Awards). Do you want me to delete the last paragraph? That is the part that might sound like advertising, but I am only giving facts about his law firm. I don't mind erasing the last paragraph, what do you think? I don't see any other area as advertising. Alicia De Los Angeles Berrios 15:09, 11 June 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aberrios13 (talk • contribs)

It wasn't nominated for deletion on the grounds of advertising, but for lack of notability. There's still no indication of notability per WP:BIO. Captain Conundrum (talk) 15:20, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

According to the message it says that is considered; advertising, autobiography, and notability. I found an article, where he got a lot of media attention because he won an asylum case for a Russian-Jew who was almost killed in Russia and migrated to the United States. Should I mention that? In addition, there are a lot of awards/recognitions which are listed on his website on accolades. Please guide me.Alicia De Los Angeles Berrios 15:36, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Up at the top of this page, it just says notability. Several times in this discussion I've said the article needs WP:Secondary, WP:Reliable sources showing how he's notable enough for an encyclopaedia article per WP:Notability (people). His own website is a WP:Primary source, and so is of no use here. Captain Conundrum (talk) 15:52, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I added information about the Russian-Jew case.Please let me know what you think. Thank you! Alicia De Los Angeles Berrios 16:32, 11 June 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aberrios13 (talk • contribs)

Many changes have been made. What else do I need to do, so that Wikipedia accepts this article? Do I need to continue looking for more cases about Luis A. Cordero? Please advise. Thank you!Alicia De Los Angeles Berrios 17:34, 11 June 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aberrios13 (talk • contribs)

We need to get WP:Consensus from more editors on his notability: only two have expressed an opinion here so far. Just be patient, and wait for more editors to give their opinions on his notability. Thank you. Captain Conundrum (talk) 17:46, 11 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 · · 18:27, 12 June 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 June 12. Snotbot  t • c »  19:54, 12 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 · · 18:37, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Userify or delete, based on content and, most particularly, recent edits by CC. Doesn't seem destined to become a decent article. --Elvey (talk) 17:16, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Good Morning Captain Conundrum, what is going on with Luis A. Cordero article? What does the Userify or delete mean? Let me know what else you want me to do. Thank you! Alicia De Los Angeles Berrios 14:21, 25 June 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aberrios13 (talk • contribs)

(in response to your note on my talk page and the above comment:) Read WP:USERFY. Read (and reread) your talk page and this page and the pages linked to! --Elvey (talk) 17:40, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, appears to fail GNG; the mentions of a wildly non-notable book smack of promotion. Hairhorn (talk) 14:47, 27 June 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) 22:29, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

List of actors considered for the James Bond character[edit]

List of actors considered for the James Bond character (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Thousands of actors have been considered, tested, accepted or turned down thousands of other roles in the history of film.

Although there are sources, just because there is a source proving an actor auditioned/was considered for the role does not mean this needs to be compiled into a list. The sources do not specifically make the article meet WP:N requirements as a separate topic, and the article in its entirety falls under WP:NOTINHERITED and WP:LISTCRUFT. AldezD (talk) 18:36, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Oddly, at least to me, reliable sources do seem to address this as an actual topic. See, e.g. The Brit List: The Fifteen Greatest Actors Who Were Almost James Bond. PS WP:WHOCARES links to an essay about arguments not to make for deletion. 24.151.116.25 (talk) 19:42, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Edited, thanks. AldezD (talk) 19:53, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Oodles of references. The media interest in the casting for this particular role is sky high and not expected to fall anytime soon. Nice try, Blofeld, but your plans for Wikipedia domination have been foiled once again. Clarityfiend (talk) 22:17, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename List of actors considered for the role of James Bond. Clarityfiend (talk) 06:25, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:22, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:22, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per WP:NOTESAL since it looks like this topic has been discussed as a grouping, as reflected by the bbcamerica.com link and others like The Daily Beast. With WP:NOTESAL applied, we can draw together other references even though they may not mention the grouping as noteworthy. Erik (talk | contribs) 14:17, 22 June 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. probably should me merged/moved to the adoption project Spartaz ^Humbug! 16:58, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Trace DeMeyer[edit]

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

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

Non-notable author, page recently accepted from AfC. The non-fiction works are in 12 libraries total according to [http://www.worldcat.org/title/two-worlds-lost-children-of-the-indian-adoption-projects/oclc/812289694&referer=brief_results

• Weak Delete Article is clearly promotional with no reputable secondary sources. Evidence of notability seems to rest on the awards which IMHO do not meet the standards of WP:AUTHOR and WP:ANYBIO. -Ad Orientem (talk) 19:15, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:45, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:45, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:45, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong keep. At least you're being honest enough to write IMHO (In my honest opinion) above, because that's all it honestly is - your opinion. Just because something is not at all notable to you, doesn't mean it isn't notable to other readers. And just because it isn't at all notable to YOU, doesn't mean there is no room for it on wikipedia. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 13:27, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Notability is not established. Search results yield only self-published websites and social media hits. -Uyvsdi (talk) 03:26, 6 June 2013 (UTC)Uyvsdi[reply]
• Keep Important within a small community for a specific population that is already heavily marginalized. Has indeed written articles and personal details into works like Origins USA.[11] The claims of awards from Native American Journalists Association need to be confirmed, but this would seem to meet GNG if they could be sourced. It will take some time, but the notability claim is there. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 14:20, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• The sources in the article, and the others that I can find, indicate that the Indian Adoption Project(s) is/are notable, and should have an article, but don't have the coverage in independent reliable sources to establish notability for Trace DeMeyer. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:32, 9 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, SarahStierch (talk) 17:04, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:51, 12 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 · · 18:29, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - The author has several books published and still in print. She is popular and notable amongst indigeonous American culture, and has recieved awards for her work. D Dayus (talk) 22:37, 21 June 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. Given that we have two editors wishing to keep the article and two editors wishing to delete (including the nominator) and the discussion has been relisted twice for an extra two weeks without further comments, a no consensus close is the most sensible outcome. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 10:01, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dave Garrison[edit]

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

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

Procedural nomination. Previous incarnations of this article were subject to speedy deletion, deleted, and re-created by the same user in 48 hours. It appears this person is marginally notable. I'm leaning towards keeping, but after working to clean it up, I am not so certain any more. Wikipedia:OUTCOMES#politicians applies. Please discuss. Bearian (talk) 18:10, 4 June 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 June 4. Snotbot  t • c »  18:59, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:50, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:51, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:51, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have included citations for all sourced materials for this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jerahn (talk • contribs) 19:26, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per WP:HEY. Sourcing has been much improved. Bearian (talk) 20:03, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Deletion is not clean up and the improvements have been great for pushing notability. Should be kept under the circumstances. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 14:09, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Of the sources currently cited one is an announcement from Garrison's employer[12], three have no more than a mention of his name[13][14][15] and the rest don't mention him at all. On what grounds do the keepers above claim that this amounts to notability? I note that the nominator has withdrawn his delete opinion, but would ask that this should not be treated as a reason for speedy keeping until a proper examination has been conducted of the available sources, which I will try to do by tomorrow. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:22, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per my analysis of the current sources above and my inability to find significant coverage in any other independent reliable sources. Phil Bridger (talk) 08:15, 11 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, SarahStierch (talk) 16:54, 12 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 · · 18:27, 19 June 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 Speedied. Peridon (talk) 19:21, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

DarthDuncan[edit]

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

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

Non-notable gaming character apparently created by the author of the article. Unreferenced to reliable independent sources. Prod declined. Peridon (talk) 17:40, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: I had tagged it for CSD myself. - Vivvt (Talk) 18:03, 19 June 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) 01:23, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Destiel[edit]

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

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

Fails WP:GNG. A meme with no reliable sources; the closest thing is "knowyourmeme.com". Citrusbowler (talk) (contribs) (email me) 16:48, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Wikipedia is not Urban Dictionary. Delete, possible speedy deletion candidate. - Mike Rosoft (talk) 17:00, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. No sources, fails WP:GNG, and as mentioned, WP is not Urban Dictionary. Possible speedy under WP:CSD#A7. Jguy _Talk^Done 17:37, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Borderline for speedy on grounds of 'context', maybe? Peridon (talk) 18:26, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Unsourced, unofficial fancruft with no evidence of any notability. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 22:43, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:55, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:55, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Entirely non notable fan craft. Possibly a candidate for A7 as non notable web content. Safiel (talk) 02:48, 20 June 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) 01:24, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hyman Classic Karate Tournaments[edit]

Hyman Classic Karate Tournaments (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Non-notable karate competition: The only search results are a youtube video and pages on a PR site. The fact that this was created by a user named "SocialMediaBomb" doesn't help my suspicion that this is sheer promotion of a completely non-notable event. TKK ^{bark !} 16:21, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:53, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:53, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy Delete This should have been speedy deleted.Peter Rehse (talk) 08:16, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I thought that, but I couldn't figure out what criteria it would meet and since I have a habit of being a little hasty with my CSDs (and have been reprimanded for such in the past) I figured I should just play it safe and AFD it. I would have no objections to closing this and speedying it if it meets one of the criteria. --TKK ^{bark !} 10:36, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well it is here now so let it run its course but I would have marked it as A7. No indication of importance (individuals, animals, organizations, web content, events).Peter Rehse (talk) 10:49, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - No references, no attempt to display notability. Fails WP:GNG. Luchuslu (talk) 12:40, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Delete No sources or claims of notability. Jakejr (talk) 14:52, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Delete This is an awful artilce--no sources or claims of notability.Mdtemp (talk) 16:35, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy deleted by admin Jimfbleak. (Non-admin closure). Stalwart111 19:46, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Guihad Daoud[edit]

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

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

Author removed my Speedy tag, so from now on I am just doing AfD's due to this nonsense. Users have gotten smart and remove PRODs and Speedys. This is not a notable person, no RS. Tyros1972 Talk 16:01, 19 June 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. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 09:58, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Peace (King Crimson song)[edit]

Peace (King Crimson song) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Individual song on an album. Wasn't released as a single. Fails WP:NSONG. Prod contested without explanation. Bondegezou (talk) 13:22, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep Notable song. Shouldn't be too hard to find various references in books, online etc. The AfD nomination is jumping the gun. Ohwrotcod (talk) 14:49, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It's a short piece (or, rather, three pieces) on a notable and important album. I'm sure there are many references to it in books, articles etc. on the album, but I cannot see how this is a notable song that warrants an article separate to the article for the album. If there are articles specifically about this piece that warrant a separate article, I look forward to seeing them, but the article has been tagged as unreferenced since January. I note you also reverted two other PRODs I did for One More Red Nightmare and In the Wake of Poseidon (song) of a similar nature. Bondegezou (talk) 15:42, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've now also done Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/In the Wake of Poseidon (song). Bondegezou (talk) 14:56, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Without release as a single or some special circumstance it would be unusual to have an article on an album track. I did think about merging into the album, but as there are no references at all there is no cited information to merge.--Salix (talk): 21:58, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:50, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Unreferenced with no assertion of importance, fails WP:NSONGS. As a further comment to Ohwrotcod, find the notability and references I am happy to change my mind in this matter. Also, merging the information into the album makes sense, especially as KC are known as album/concept band rather than a purveyor of "songs" --Richhoncho (talk) 17:54, 20 June 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. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 09:58, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Plaza Sésamo: Monstruos Sanos[edit]

Plaza Sésamo: Monstruos Sanos (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

As near as I can tell, this appears to be a DVD (probably a Spanish dub or version of the 2004 English Happy, Healthy Monsters video listed in List of Sesame Street video releases, about which we lack an article) rather than a broadcast TV show. In any event, I can find no sources anywhere on the Web—other than a couple of places selling the DVD, along with a copy of this WP article—that mention this production, so it appears to fail WP:N and WP:V. Deor (talk) 12:25, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:49, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. For all we know from the article, it could be an hoax. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 17:38, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom.  Yintan  11:41, 25 June 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) 01:24, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Field of fire (weaponry)[edit]

Field of fire (weaponry) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

nothing but WP:OR, unreferenced since 2005. I've tried to find sources and while I can find the term used in plenty of situations, it seems the best we could do would leave this as a WP:NOTDICDEF. I recommend deletion and perhaps listing at Wiktionary. Toddst1 (talk) 12:27, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The article is about the concept of field of fire, not the expression. I'm sure other languages have other terms for it. This takes it out of the dictionary class. However the article could use improvement and sources. Kitfoxxe (talk) 22:48, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep There are numerous books of tactics which discuss this concept in detail such as Rifles and Machine Guns; Infantry Training; Infantry Fire; Machine-Gun Tactics; Tactics and Technique of Infantry; Machine Guns: their history and tactical employment. The idea that this topic is original is quite mistaken. Warden (talk) 22:53, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The topic is clearly not OR. The writing seems to be observations on the subject, i.e. OR. Toddst1 (talk) 23:10, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Our writings are supposed to be original; otherwise it would be copyright violation/palgiarism. What OR prohibits is original theories/discoveries but the material here is standard stuff of the WWI/WW2 era. Warden (talk) 08:33, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:26, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep and improve per above - it's about the concept, not the phrase, so not WP:NOTDICT. Ansh666 01:45, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - per Ansh666. It is about a well-known concept, not the phrase. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 12:04, 20 June 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. Mark Arsten (talk) 18:52, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hugh Barrett-Lennard[edit]

Hugh Barrett-Lennard (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

per WP:Notability esp. notability is not inherited; priest, army captain; nice chatty little article quite at home on a genealogy site but we do not require an article on him or thousands of his ilk. Baronets are not nobility and do not sneak in as MPs. Crusoe8181 (talk) 12:01, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Why doesn't he satisfy WP:GNG? You haven't discussed the sources at all. His obituary in the Daily Telegraph seems significant, plus coverage in Burke's peerage. postdlf (talk) 14:31, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep meets WP:GNG per Telegraph coverage (and Who's Who, and elsewhere). Clearly not a privacy invasion (he's dead). He receives a few WP:NPOINTS for inheriting a baronetcy, the other things add to that to give a keep package. Barney the barney barney (talk) 17:01, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:46, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:46, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:46, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:46, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. No, his relatively junior military and religious posts wouldn't automatically qualify him for an article, but having an obituary in a major daily newspaper most certainly does. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:39, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment (by nominator) He had an obit in the DT because the DT published obits of titled personages however inconsequential such a personage may have been; the obit being dutifully supplied by the family with such omissions and inclusions as were deemed necessary Crusoe8181 (talk) 11:03, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • That doesn't read to me like a family-supplied obit, but rather one contributed by staff. postdlf (talk) 15:36, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Absolutely. It's a full-length obit, not just a short notice of death. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:50, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep -- It is my understanding that the British broadsheet newspapers have obituaries written for them by staff reporters or commissioned from external authors well in advance of the death. I am not clear to what extent these are produced by interviewing the subject and to what extent his friends. However, this is clearly counts as WP:RS, even though not everything that appears in the newspapers is correct. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:42, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete People have to do something notable to be notable,, with a limited exception for a few traditional figures like members of royal families. and the few best known socialites who become famous as such. Very few newspapers have standards for obits which would amount to automatic notability. I'd accept the NYT and The Times; if this is representative, I don't accept the Telegraph. "Major national newspapers" is much too broad a criterion for this. Anyone related to nobility gets in Burke's--it's indiscriminate. Who'sWho is the classic example of a source that does not count for notability , though the UK version is just a little more discriminating than the American. DGG ( talk ) 00:39, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not really. There are no more than half a dozen (at most) major national newspapers in the United Kingdom which publish proper obituaries. He will not have a full obituary in such a newspaper merely for being a baronet or peer - they are far more discriminating than that. Does an entry in the British Who's Who count for automatic notability? No it doesn't, but it's a pretty good indicator that someone who's included may very well be notable (and I acknowledge that all baronets and peers are included, so that is less an issue here). And unlike many other publications of the same name (and contrary to what many who are used to those publications seem to believe), it is not a vanity publication, but a respected reference work which does not charge those who are included or solicit or accept applications to be included. -- Necrothesp (talk) 08:57, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. There is a generally accepted heirarchy of national newspapers in the UK, and The Daily Telegraph, along with The Guardian, The Independent and The Times and their Sunday stablemates, sits in the top rank, meaning that we should accept an obituary as conclusive evidence of notability. Phil Bridger (talk) 22:45, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Yes, those major London newspapers, and I'd also include regional newspapers with a national outlook, i.e. Yorkshire Post [16], Belfast Telegraph (e.g. [17] [18], The Scotsman [19], Glasgow Herald [20] (and any other I've overlooked). Barney the barney barney (talk) 22:01, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep There is sufficient here to persuade me that he was notable at the time, whatever the reasons. The argument that a person has to do something notable to be notable is fraught with difficulties, because it is clearly possible to be famous for being famous. And it conflicts with the rule that notability in the past is sufficient for WP notability now, since ideas of celebrity and the reasons for it change over time. Take Lady Curzon, somebody who arguably did little except marry the right man, give dinner parties and offer advice and opinions. Yet she made an enormous impression on many of those she encountered and the present article fails to do justice to her fame and influence. I would argue too that the less they are remembered today, the more valuable an WP article, because when we find them mentioned in literature or old documents the greater the need to look them up. Notability is a measure of whether we are likely to to find such past references. --AJHingston (talk) 15:59, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy deleted by admin Jimfbleak (non-admin closure). Stalwart111 19:51, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Creative School of San Pedro[edit]

Creative School of San Pedro (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Since author removed the PROD I am opening an AfD for the same reasons since they cannot close it. no indication of WP:notability. No independent WP:reliable sources. Apparently created by editor with a WP:Conflict of interest. Tyros1972 Talk 11:25, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete as promotional article on non notable organization. See also Creative School of San Pedro. 76.248.151.159 (talk) 12:00, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Note - I've moved the pages around, so the duplicate is now located at Centre for Creative Learners. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 14:54, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete as spam. Article serves only to promote the school. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 12:14, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy under WP:CSD#G11. Reads as promotional. Fails WP:GNG. No Sources. Jguy _Talk^Done 17:40, 19 June 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 Wikipedias. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 09:56, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sorani Wikipedia[edit]

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

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

Non-notable version of Wikipedia: the article either includes only non-independent and self-published sources (especially Wikipedia itself), or has no sources at all. (Contested PROD). eh bien mon prince (talk) 11:21, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment can't you just redirect this to List of Wikipedias or something? Barney the barney barney (talk) 16:59, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirecting an article without discussion would be kind of tyrannical, I think.--eh bien mon prince (talk) 10:16, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep under the policy of WP:IGNOREALLRULES, we need to document our own history. Carrite (talk) 17:22, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If its only purpose is to document the history of Wikipedia, it should not be in mainspace.--eh bien mon prince (talk) 10:17, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to List of Wikipedias. It's not notable but should not be outright deleted. Jguy _Talk^Done 17:46, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:37, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect per Jguy. Ansh666 01:50, 20 June 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 Wikipedias. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 10:02, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Northern Sami Wikipedia[edit]

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

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

Non-notable version of Wikipedia: the article either includes only non-independent and self-published sources (especially Wikipedia itself), or has no sources at all. (Contested PROD). eh bien mon prince (talk) 11:22, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Evano1van(எவனோ ஓருவன்) 17:01, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep under the policy of WP:IGNOREALLRULES, we need to document our own history. Carrite (talk) 17:23, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to List of Wikipedias. It's not notable but should not be outright deleted. Jguy _Talk^Done 17:49, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect per Jguy. Ansh666 01:50, 20 June 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 Wikipedias. (non-admin closure) czar · · 17:35, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sundanese Wikipedia[edit]

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

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

Non-notable version of Wikipedia: the article either includes only non-independent and self-published sources (especially Wikipedia itself), or has no sources at all. (Contested PROD). eh bien mon prince (talk) 11:21, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Evano1van(எவனோ ஓருவன்) 17:02, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep under the policy of WP:IGNOREALLRULES, we need to document our own history. Carrite (talk) 17:24, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to List of Wikipedias. It's not notable but should not be outright deleted. Jguy _Talk^Done 17:49, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Other, smaller versions of Wikipedia (such as the Yiddish Wikipedia) have their own articles. The Sundanese Wikipedia would be a strange exception. Chri$topher 18:07, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:OTHERSTUFF is not a good reason - also, this is SuNdanese, not Sudanese. Ansh666 01:42, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Corrected the title issue, but I do feel as though this is still a legitimate point. There are multiple versions of Wikipedia with fewer articles than the Sundanese Wikipedia which have had articles on Wikipedia, and WP:OTHERSTUFF arguments are legitimate under certain circumstances. For example "in consideration of precedent and consistency...identifying articles of the same nature that have been established and continue to exist on Wikipedia may provide extremely important insight into...levels of notability...and whether or not a level and type of article should be on Wikipedia". In this circumstance, because different versions of Wikipedia are unlikely to have notability as different versions of Wikipedia (language versions of Wikipedia are rarely discussed as such), it's important to look at precedent. The precedent seems to be such that deleting that article for the Sundanese Wikipedia would make it the exception to the general rule of keeping similar articles. Chri$topher 03:30, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • The problem is that the articles with lower page counts (e.g. Silesian Wikipedia or Yiddish Wikipedia) have significant coverage in independent, reliable sources and therefore meet notability requirements, unlike the 4 articles currently at AfD. I agree that WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is valid in some cases, but not this one. Ansh666 03:43, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • Alright. I can see that, now. I was previously unaware that other articles on Wikipedias were being proposed for deletion. I'll change my opinion to redirect, then, unless someone can find sources to declare the Sundanese Wikipedia as notable. Chri$topher 03:53, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
          • Ah, I could see why that would cause some confusion. Glad to have cleared that up for ya. Ansh666 04:03, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect per Jguy. Ansh666 01:50, 20 June 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. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 09:56, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dushmeenoi[edit]

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

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

Not even released, no RS and not notable for films. Tyros1972 Talk 11:12, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Delete - if it exists, then stubbify and rewrite. Eddie.willers (talk) 19:03, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have already edited grammar, stubbified, and bulleted this article. However, it still needs citation. If anyone can find a reference, that would be great. Thank you! PinkTruffles123 (talk) 20:22, 19 June 2013 (UTC)PinkTruffles123[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:35, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:36, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Delete I prettied up the article and found its actual name for searches. In looking for the director and actors, I found that IMDB has a 2002 release date as Dushmani,[21] but this could be based upon either a DVD release of the earlier release or release (as with most Indian films before their release) of soundtrack music. There even seems to be a few sites that offer the film and/or its music for download, but I cannot find any confirmation in reliable sources. Pointy here being, the project fails WP:NF. Allow back only if its release can be confirmed and only if it is shown to have received the requisite coverage (maybe under a different name). Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 07:00, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy delete a7. No indication that author has been recognized as notable by independent sources, see WP:V. "Read the book and decide if it's worthy" is not how we decide these things. Also, this is apparently the author promoting himself. NawlinWiki (talk) 20:38, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Leonard Walker[edit]

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

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

Not a notable person. Tyros1972 Talk 11:07, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Why don't you read the book, then decide if his talent and contribution to literature makes this author worthy of note? To have a book published by a reputable publisher incurs a certain amount of de facto notoriety. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lpaulwalkerjr (talk • contribs) 15:52, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Delete - I am seeing positive proof of WP:COI between subject and article's author (they appear to be one and the same). Additionally, preceding comment rests upon subjective criteria such as 'talent' and 'contribution to literature'. Eddie.willers (talk) 19:06, 19 June 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 procedural close - wrong venue, try WP:MFD (non-admin close). Stalwart111 11:43, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

User:Slim cop/Roy Thockold[edit]

User:Slim cop/Roy Thockold (edit | [[Talk:User:Slim cop/Roy Thockold|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

subject not notable simontcope 10:57, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

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 hooligan firms. If any content needs to be merged, this can be done after the close of this AfD. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 10:03, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Subway Army[edit]

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

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

Non-notable football hooligan "firm", web search reveals only a couple of extremely brief passing mentions in more general articles on hooliganism, nothing in-depth. Most of the article appears to be about general Wolves-relegated hooliganism committed years after this group reportedly disbanded...... ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:42, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:42, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

'Weak Keep' - needs a thorough rewrite to lose the acres of unsupported text, but the Guardian article is fairly in depth about this particular group, and there are enough other (admittedly slighter) references from the BBC, When Saturday Comes etc to establish notability. StuartDouglas (talk) 11:07, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:30, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:30, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:30, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:31, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge and redirect to Wolverhampton Wanderers F.C.#Support as no evidence of any independent notability. GiantSnowman 09:13, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Keep -- Football hooliganism was a significant problem, mainly in the past. A case study such as this is thus worth having. Since it is largelyu history, I would oppose merger, since including substantial material on a minority of misguided alleged supporters will upset the balance of the main article, though it might briefly be mentioned with a link (possibly via a main template). However we have a vast amount of unreferenced material. Can any of this be verified, for example from lofcal newspapers, such as Express and Star? If not, it probably derives from the memories of participants, which is not WP:RS and must therefore be removed. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:06, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to List of hooligan firms. The article is a shambles, and it is unlikely that enough reliable sources can be found to clean it up properly. But there's no harm in redirecting to a related list. Oldelpaso (talk) 19:44, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect. As above. No evidence of notability. How this rubbish has been kept on Wikipedia for three-and-a-half years is beyond me. Walls of Jericho (talk) 23:29, 21 June 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) 22:31, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

FBI Ghosts[edit]

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

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

I'm nominating this for deletion due to it not passing WP:NBOOK. This is a self-published series and while that doesn't mean that self-published books can't become notable, this series isn't one of those exceptions. There's no coverage to show that this has received notice by any reliable sources. I'm also nominating this along with FBI Ghosts Church of the Fallen, the first book in the series. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:56, 19 June 2013 (UTC) I am also nominating the following related pages:[reply]

FBI Ghosts Church of the Fallen (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I feel that this page does not need to be deleted. It is a relevant publication with plans for a multi book series. This title is available for purchase on major online stores including Amazon and Lulu. How else would a self start get notoriety if he cannot make his series information available to the public. If http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Chinese_Stars gets a page why not FBI Ghosts: Church of the Fallen? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Photogeniks (talk • contribs) 15:19, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, non-notable self-published books. Hairhorn (talk) 14:22, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is a self published work but I do not think it should be deleted. The page is not promotional, it is straight forward and just good info. It is also relevant as there isn't any wiki info on either topics even outside the book. I think the two pages should be merged together. Hellsbane (talk) 14:42, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• It being promotional or not promotional isn't really the actual issue here. What the issue we have here is that the book has not received any actual coverage in reliable sources. Listings in merchant sites, publishers, blogs, or anything that comes from the author will not show notability for the books or the series. The existence of other pages (such as Chinese Stars) doesn't mean that this page merits an entry. All that the existence of another page means is that the band's article hasn't been noticed yet and either improved or deleted. It could also be that the page has something on it that would establish notability. If anything, pointing out other pages with no established notability actually increases the other page's chance of getting deleted. In any case, it won't save any other articles by existing. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:07, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• In this case, the Chinese Stars has *just* enough notability to where they'd merit an article, but just very barely. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:23, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete No indication of any coverage anywhere upon which to build a verifiable article. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 16:13, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete The author can publicise his book the way others do: best of all, get with a real publisher and let them do the work (lower percentage of take in royalties, but way bigger sales more than compensates for that...), or failing that, plug it wherever they allow plugging. We don't. We record the arrived, not the up and coming or the struggling. Virtually anything can be listed at Amazon - I've even seen someone asking $98 for a 14 page booklet (wonder how many he sold...). I will say that unlike some self-publishing outfits, lulu do give reasonable space for a webpage. All well and good if anyone knows it's there. Basically, if you're a new author with a regular publisher, you stand a chance of reliable independent reviews. Not all get them. Self-publishers practically never get them. Or the sales. Good luck, anyway. Keep trying the regular publishers - look for a back door... Peridon (talk) 18:42, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete The books are, as has been previously stated, non notable. I have no problem with self published books if they're notable, however these are clearly not. A quick internet search has revealed no mention of them save what the author has already written or listed. --RPhilbrook (talk) 20:36, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:27, 20 June 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 -- Y not? 19:40, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comillar Kagoj[edit]