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} 23:42, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Cars-R-Coffins[edit]

Cars-R-Coffins (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 nothing to show that this website is notable. Fails WP:WEB. SL93 (talk) 22:01, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Minnesota-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:59, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:59, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:59, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:00, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Also failed to find significant coverage of this brand. Mabalu (talk) 00:08, 29 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} 23:43, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Randy Scott[edit]

Randy Scott (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 significant coverage. The article was created by the subject. Fails WP:BIO. SL93 (talk) 21:56, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:58, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:58, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:58, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Article was created in 2006 and the subject has not edited it much since then. - Dravecky (talk) 00:09, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Online coverage mostly limited to passing references in local media. Article's only source is dead link to subject's official website. Fails WP:GNG Levdr1lp / talk 00:16, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• I agree, he's not notable. Not even close. Delete WisconsinBoyClevelandRocks228844 (talk) 03:36, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. Holy smokes, Batman--that's a clear-cut case of speedy delete and close per SNOW and BLP1E. Trout for whoever wrote this. Drmies (talk) 02:00, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yeiner Perez[edit]

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

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

Not notable. See WP:BLP1E and WP:BLPCRIME. Randykitty (talk) 21:42, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per ONEEVENT NintendoFan (Talk, Contribs) 22:26, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:54, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:54, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:54, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. A one-event biography that fails WP:CRIME. No evidence of notability as an entertainer. The guidance "Editors must give serious consideration to not creating an article on an alleged perpetrator when no conviction is yet secured." applies here. • Gene93k (talk) 00:18, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete for all the reasons stated by others, plus a compassionate reading of WP:BLP. This young man suffered a humiliating public psychiatric crisis. He should be spared a permanent record of it in the world's leading encyclopedia. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 00:38, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong delete, speedy if possible. A single unflattering event does not make for notability. While there are sources from reputable outlets, this still shouldn't be here. Hairhorn (talk) 00:09, 30 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) 23:03, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Big stare bo[edit]

Big stare bo (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 basically a copy of the text (with changed name) of http://pacificrim.wikia.com/wiki/Axe-head. I don't think the types of monsters appearing in the Pacific Rim movie are notable enough for articles. ArglebargleIV (talk) 20:41, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:42, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:42, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. On a title of knifehead or axe-head it would be non-notable. On a title of big stare bo it looks like pure vandalism. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 00:28, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete unsourcable article as WP:MADEUP name. Perhaps redirect and mention the film and game antagonist/monsters to Pacific Rim (film) or Pacific Rim (video game) later on... if or when they get independent coverage. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 06:48, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Nuke it (delete) So many things are wrong with this - it's a copy from Wikia, it has a frankly stupid title, notability isn't inherited, it's written in in-universe style, etc. Ansh666 17:56, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Only source is a wiki. This was created by a newbie and, looking at some of their other edits it looks like they are messing around. We might direct then to the Teahouse to see if anyone there wants to help and turn them into a productive editor. MarnetteD | Talk 04:46, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete This creature appears to lack the notability for a separate article. (How does this ever get to Afd??). --Stormbay (talk) 02:54, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Honestly? I AfD'd the article instead of CSDing it because I couldn't determine the precise CSD category to put it under; I've been burned before for not picking the right one, and after being "reminded" a couple times to reread the CSD pages after choosing G1 instead of G3 (f'rinstance), I tend to AfD anything remotely borderline just to be safe. (Hmm, that came out a bit whinier than I intended, but I think I'll leave it.) -- ArglebargleIV (talk) 20:29, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • I understand the burned before situation. I didn't expect a response to my musing, but Thanks!. Stormbay (talk) 22:37, 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 redirect to Elisa Izquierdo. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 23:50, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Awilda Lopez[edit]

Awilda Lopez (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 fails WP:N. News stories, publications, etc. surround the life and abuse of her daughter, Elisa Izquierdo. Awilda is not independently notable of her daughter or the later scrutiny placed upon her daughter's circumstances, and any relevant and applicable information regarding Awilda is included in the article about her daughter. AldezD (talk) 19:27, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:37, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:37, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:38, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to the daughters article, or Delete. WP:BLP1E, no independent notability.Martin451 (talk) 23:55, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete There is insufficient notability for an article...a redirect adds a non-notable link. --Stormbay (talk) 03:03, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Elisa Izquierdo--Benfold (talk) 06:17, 3 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 Snow Keep. Mark Arsten (talk) 23:05, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Journal of Software Maintenance and Evolution: Research and Practice[edit]

Journal of Software Maintenance and Evolution: Research and Practice (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 journal is not discussed by others. I can find no RSes to support notability. Walter Görlitz (talk) 18:49, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Wikipedia:NBOOK#Academic_and_technical_books states that one proper criterion for judging the notability of academic books is "how widely the book is cited by other academic publications". Cf. similar citation criterion for academics in WP:ACADEMIC. Google Books and Scholar show numerous citations to this journal. Microsoft Academic Search ranks this journal twentyfirst on its list of Software Engineering journals by citation. [1]. 24.151.116.25 (talk) 20:36, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep as per above. I recommend that the proposer does more research before proposing deletion in the future, especially if in an area in which they are not familiar. -- Jonathan Bowen (talk) 20:59, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:35, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:35, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I added indexing information to the article. The journal is indexed in the Science Citation Index Expanded and SCOPUS and has an impact factor; per WP:NJournals, the journal thus satisfies criterion 1: The journal is considered by reliable sources to be influential in its subject area and passes threshold of notability for academic journals. While WP:NJournals is an essay, it has been essentially treated as policy by AfD folk in recent times. --Mark viking (talk) 23:45, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. A well-established journal by a major publisher, with its inclusion in SCIX and SCOPUS serving as the multiple sources of independent coverage needed for NJournals and GNG. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:48, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Sizable impact factor, included in several selective major databases: meets WP:NJournals without any problem. I've edited the article to make it up-to-date (it has changed its name last year and the article will have to be moved once this AfD is closed). --Randykitty (talk) 14:17, 29 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) 04:38, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Donald Keith (actor)[edit]

Donald Keith (actor) (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)

Yes, maybe he's well know for co-starring on films with Clara Bow, but I'm surprised that I couldn't find enough in-depth sources for this article to be included on Wikipedia. If you find any other reliable sources about this person, let me know and I'll be as happy as all heck to withdraw this discussion. But as of now, it's possible this won't pass WP:ENT. EditorE (talk) 17:28, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I think all of you users who said to keep this article should read WP:NOTTEMPORARY. EditorE (talk) 20:37, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Response. Perhaps it is you who should read NOTTEMPORARY. He was a movie star (of sorts) in the 20s, therefore notable in that decade. Once notable, always notable, as far as Wikipedia is concerned. It is virtually certain that the star of multiple films was written of in the media of the day. The fact that there is little on the internet is not too surprising considering the earliness of his heyday. Still, a search of the New York Times archives is not unfruitful, despite the free previews being short. You can see that there's an article where Clara Bow denies being engaged to him, a review which states "The three principals in this picture, Miss Moran, Donald Keith and Larry i (sic) Kent, are easy in their acting", another that says "Donald Keith is highly satisfactory as Sven" and a couple of others where his name pops up in the preview. Clarityfiend (talk) 22:48, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. He starred or co-starred in at least half a dozen films, including Parisian Love and The Plastic Age (which should probably have an article), and fourth billing on The Way of All Flesh. That satisfies ENT #1. Clarityfiend (talk) 22:07, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:30, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:30, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. I added a photo of him and Clara to his template. Maybe a poster from The Plastic Age from Commons, his most well known movie and still survives. There's enough relevant info to let people know who he was. I just want to add that there are several minor female performers from silents who have wiki articles with no problem, some not as famous as Keith. Also, some articles of famous people ie Marilyn Monroe, Elvis Presley, Charles Manson prattle on too long and could use massive doses of trimming. If those long articles are allowed then there has to be a space for Donald Keith and even maybe a female performer like Ann Rork, who came into silent films on the arms of her producer father Sam Rork. Koplimek (talk) 18:33, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. WP:ENT point 1 "Has had significant roles in multiple notable films" satisfied by starring in The Plastic Age and fourth on cast list of Special Delivery and The Way of the Flesh, as linked in the article. Ironically, the nominator should read WP:NOTTEMPORARY himself, since it can never be a reason for deleting an article. Dricherby (talk) 09:19, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 23:44, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

El Gato Maria By: Juan Guzman Hernandez-Martinez III. Jr.[edit]

El Gato Maria By: Juan Guzman Hernandez-Martinez III. Jr. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Contested PROD. Article about a painting by a Canadian artist that had its 5 minutes of fame after being posted in Reddit (as a sort of inside joke because it features a cat, and Reddit is big on cats). I can't find sufficient secondary coverage (enduring notability) for either the work or the artist. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 17:25, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:07, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Fails any notability test with no references. Starting to see these type of articles popping up, an image "famous" for being on reddit or some other site. freshacconci talk to me 01:19, 29 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} 23:45, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nikola Perisic[edit]

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

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

no sources, no trace of existence, fails GNG In ictu oculi (talk) 16:42, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Croatia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:45, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:45, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:45, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Lack of sources and I have made a good faith effort to find reliable objective sources. He may not exist, and if he does there is nothing in the article that leads me to believe that he is notable. The leagues and teams he has played for do not provide inherent notability. Rikster2 (talk) 12:17, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 23:06, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Jethoo[edit]

Jethoo (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)

Jethoo (and Jetho, Jethu) are certainly names but I can find no reliable sources that reference this as a gotra or indeed any social group. Fails WP:GNG. Sitush (talk) 11:32, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. Evano1van(எவனோ ஓருவன்) 12:24, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Evano1van(எவனோ ஓருவன்) 12:24, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: The article is unreferenced and I couldn't find any verification. SL93 (talk) 18:11, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar · · 15:55, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this unreferenced and non notable subject,--Stormbay (talk) 03:06, 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 redirect to TechMediaNetwork, Inc.. Any content to potentially merge can be salvage from history. :) ·Salvidrim!· ✉ 15:02, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

TopTenReviews[edit]

TopTenReviews (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)

Notability claims are tenuous, at best most of the awards are minor, mostly lacking notability themselves, some are simply marketing. I re-list mostly because the previous listing from 5 years ago was tainted by some pretty serious sockpuppeting, see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Dr90s/Archive. Яehevkor ✉ 23:09, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• I'd vote against deletion, because Top Ten Reviews is a major site on the web. If anyone wanted to put some effort into the article, multiple citations could be found that were more notable than these awards. I'd write a better article myself, but I'm an employee of the parent company, so it would be a conflict. Jfp999 (talk) 23:18, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Also, considering that the guy who nominated the page for deletion edited the article just prior to nominating it to remove the majority of the article, I'd say this is a pretty shoddy process. Jfp999 (talk) 00:05, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing worthwhile was removed. It isn't being deleted because of lack of content, its being deleted because lack of notability. DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 00:42, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Seconded. Rehevkor rightfully removed that information. Sergecross73 msg me 02:14, 6 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) 01:31, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:31, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's the 209th largest web site in the United States according to Quantcast (https://www.quantcast.com/toptenreviews.com), and that actually understates it. That certainly qualifies as notable for websites. Here's 4 reputable links that I found with about 5 minutes effort on Google: http://paidcontent.org/2010/01/12/419-toptenreviews-adds-1-5-million-in-funding/

http://www.standard.net/stories/2012/09/17/technology-review-company-benefits-high-use-mobile-devices

http://www.standard.net/stories/2012/04/20/utc-names-ogden-businessman-ceo-year

http://www.standard.net/topics/business/2009/10/26/ogden-web-site-buys-nyc-company

Though, to be honest, I think the article given how little it contains should just be merged into the article on Tech Media Network (the parent company) Jfp999 (talk) 03:11, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Might want to go through Wikipedia:Notability (web) to see if it can pass any of those criterias. I'll go through them myself later to see if this article can be salvaged. If not, a redirect would be my second preferred option, if this website is as popular as you say. DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 05:20, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

One criteria is "The website or content has won a well-known and independent award from either a publication or organization." The OMMA award certainly qualifies for that. They are well known in media circles. The American Business Awards are well known also. There's also been plenty of magazine and newspaper coverage of Top Ten Reviews since it's founding. But, as I said, my opinion is unless somebody wants to actually put some effort into the article, it should just be redirected to the parent company page. Jfp999 (talk) 10:05, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - As much as I hate the website, the worthless reviews ranked by commission (weird how none of the top 25 antivirus products are free) and the hundreds of Google spam subdomains, it's notable. Most of the notability probably relates to the business side, which was renamed TechMediaNetwork, so it could be worth merging. - hahnchen 14:22, 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,  — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:26, 13 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, LFaraone 01:00, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Tom Morris (talk) 15:31, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to TechMediaNetwork, Inc.. Notability is borderline; a few reliable sources exist, but I'm not convinced there's enough to say about it to justify a separate article. There's barely even any content to merge here. Robofish (talk) 23:57, 29 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} 23:46, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Michael White (writer)[edit]

Michael White (writer) (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've declined a WP:CSD#A7 on this as the article does have some news sources such as this one, so he's not completely and utterly insignificant, but neverthless I don't believe there's enough significant coverage to make a full article out him. In particular, this Guardian source is a blatant bit of puffery, since I get the impression that the article just picked a handful of any students it could muster opinion from, and printed them as part of a piece on something else. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 15:28, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:39, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:39, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, fails GNG. Hairhorn (talk) 19:09, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• agree Delete, fails to meet WP:GNG criteria Paul W (talk) 12:05, 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 delete. Unverifiable, which overrides the general guideline as to the notability of places LFaraone 00:38, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Kudkady[edit]

Kudkady (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)

Cant find any reliable source to find the notability of this place. Seems to be original research. No reference links can be find. Benedictdilton (talk) 18:07, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:29, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Totally unreferenced articles are unacceptable. DavidLeighEllis (talk) 21:31, 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, SarahStierch (talk) 19:49, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - only mentions I could find on the entire internets are this article itself. Ansh666 00:45, 14 June 2013 (UTC) Waiting for people to find sources, below. I can't really help, so I'll just sit here awkwardly. Ansh666 23:30, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's been almost a week with no response - delete. Ansh666 21:17, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: There seems to a Kudkady located 16km from Puttur, Karnataka per Wikimapia. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 05:18, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, maybe it exists. Don't really think that qualifies it to pass WP:NGEO or even WP:GNG, though. Ansh666 05:28, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • If a village does exist, we have kept them per WP:NPLACE regardless of their size and failure of GNG. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 06:28, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • The question per WP:NGEO (which I think WP:NPLACE is based on) is if it has legal recognition - if yes, then keep it; if no, then by WP:GNG it shouldn't stay. I honestly have no idea how to find this out. Ansh666 06:40, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • Interesting point this legal recognition is. Now there are two main problems in finding proper stuff. One is that this spelling might not be the most popular one. And another is that many Kannadigas use their place's name in their name; as first name. Thats making it difficult to search. I will request some Kannada speaking guys to check this out. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 11:02, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: Hi, the place does exists and the spelling might be different, it is either spelt as Kudkady or Kadkadi. Give me some time, a day atleast and I will find the source. -sarvajna (talk) 11:31, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• This should help.[[2]].--Nvvchar. 23:22, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Question - given its user-created nature, does WikiMapia count as a WP:RS? Ansh666 23:28, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Google maps are taken as reliable with regard to the name and location of places. In the reference [[3]] there is police FIR recorded in Kukkudy Village by the Dakshina Kannada District Police. It is an official site of the police station though url mentions it as a blog. The text of FIR reads "Google Book search gives 56 hits of Kukkady, as surname of doctors and scientists. In south India, it is traditional to keep the name of place of birth as part of the name or as surname. FIR Text reads “A case of Non Fatal Road accident has been registered in Venoor Police Station. On 27/09/2009 at 1020 hrs at Ambedkar Nagar Kukkady village Belthangady Taluk one Udaya Kumar rider of motorcycle bearing Reg. No. KA-21-H-8615 drove his vehicle in a rash and negligent manner and collided against one Vimala a pedestrian and caused her grievous injuries.” Further Google search of books gives gives 56 hits of Kukkady, as surname of doctors and scientists. In South India, it is traditional to keep the name of place of birth as part of the name or as surname.--Nvvchar. 00:22, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as lacking evidence of independent in depth coverage as required by the WP:GNG. Feel free to ping my talk page if more sources are added to the article. Stuartyeates (talk) 21:15, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LFaraone 00:47, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Tom Morris (talk) 15:28, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep as per WP:NPLACE- articles on villages are kept. Rayabhari (talk) 16:50, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • See my comments above on why WP:NPLACE isn't always accurate. Ansh666 17:58, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. This AfD was clearly no consensus when it was first relisted. Since then, it has been relisted for a further week and still we have no comments. It is therefore quite clear that there is no consensus to do anything here. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 23:53, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Fakhrul Islam[edit]

Fakhrul Islam (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 politician, never gained office and is known only for getting shot. Ansh666 23:54, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't claim to have done adequate WP:BEFORE work (although I did some), so I'll now say Merge/Redirect into the below target. Ansh666 19:06, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - I didn't mean my comment about it normally being a redirect as opposed to delete to be a jab against your nomination. Although I disagree with it being deleted (at least at this point), it was still a good nomination and well worth the discussion. --FoolMeOnce2Times (talk) 22:26, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• No, I know, I'm just easily convinced - and embarrassed that I was the one to find a good redirect target! IMO switching votes needs a good reason, though, and especially so as the nominator, hence my comment. Ansh666 20:34, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:27, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:27, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:27, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: Fails WP:POLITICIAN, WP:ONEEVENT. Ravenswing 06:44, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: fails WP:POLITICIAN. Also, someone is surely not notable for a single event, especially if it is just their death. Never held office, too. Thine Antique Pen (talk) 20:43, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Well, I hate to dissent, but I feel that this would rise to a little more than WP:ONEEVENT. While the assassination seems to be what it prominent in the news right now, there are sources that state that he was the leader of Muttahida Qaumi Movement.[4] While much of the press is about the assassination, this is big news in his country. It is also a political assassination, not just an ordinary murder that people often try to spam Wikipedia with. It is also now reported that the Tehrik-i-Taliban Pakistan, the rival political party, claimed responsibility for the attack which make this a little more than just an assassination, but what can be considered a terrorist attack as it was carried out by a terrorist organization (the Taliban). Criterion #2 of WP:POLITICIAN states "Major local political figures who have received significant press coverage" is a criterion for notability. Although he was only running for political office, he is still a "major local political figure" where he was from and received press associated with such. According to this article, he was a target of planned assassinations by the Taliban. I look at this as a "political assassination carried out by a terrorist organization" (my words) as opposed to a politician "known only for getting shot" (words of nominator). So, my opinion is to keep the article or alternatively create an article for Assassination of Fakhrul Islam or Assassination of Pakistan Provincial Assembly Candidates in 2013 or something similar. Finally, if this does end up with a delete consensus, it should be redirected anyway. WP:POLITICIAN states "the general rule is to redirect to an appropriate page covering the election or political office sought in lieu of deletion." As such, either a redirect or delete consensus should be redirected to Muttahida Qaumi Movement, Member of the Provincial Assembly, or something similar.--FoolMeOnce2Times (talk) 15:33, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • There's a section (Pakistani general election, 2013#Violence) which could serve as a redirect target. Ansh666 17:53, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Assuming redirect, this would be my article of choice. We could add the information into that section and redirect accordingly. Good Find!! --FoolMeOnce2Times (talk) 18:30, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • The source quoted starts with "A Muttahida Qaumi Movement leader," not THE leader, and that's ONE source, not "sources." His alleged leadership notwithstanding, he doesn't appear anywhere in the rather extensive, and heavily sourced, Muttahida Qaumi Movement article. I don't have objections myself to a redirect, but perhaps the opinion of those editors who've been maintaining the MQM article should be solicited. Ravenswing 20:24, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • You bring up a good point about MQM editors. My contention is based on him being a "major local" political figure. Would it be considered WP:CAN to solicit an opinion from those working in WP:PAK?--FoolMeOnce2Times (talk) 22:23, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Even if it was, I don't think we'd mind - actually, I'd welcome their input. Ansh666 00:06, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Done. You can see the thread here.--FoolMeOnce2Times (talk) 00:38, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't think it's a canvassing violation at all. WP:CANVASS specifically warns against seeking to influence one side of a debate. I don't claim to be unusually knowledgeable on Pakistani politics, and should there be local, reliable sources that have anything to say on the subject's notability beyond the ONEEVENT nature of his assassination, those editors would have a lot better chance of knowing that than I do. Ravenswing 06:48, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge and redirect to Muttahida Qaumi Movement unless sources can be found. His name in his native tongue would also be very useful. Feel free to ping my talk page if either are added to the article. Stuartyeates (talk) 20:27, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LFaraone 00:40, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Tom Morris (talk) 15:28, 28 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. I interpret the discussion here as lacking a consensus that the article should be deleted now. No prejudice to a future renomination if it later appears that there is no notability, and of course our readership may be better served by merger under a more widely known heading. I'll leave that discussion to more knowledgable parties. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 13:24, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Ghazdewan[edit]

Battle of Ghazdewan (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)

(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)

Content fork fails WP:GNG. Article seems to have been copy-pasted from 1854 book (claimed to be in public domain), with only two passing mentions of subject. Only Google search hit is a WP mirror; nothing in Google Books (including link in footnote), Scholar, HighBeam, Questia or Credo. When I tried to write the lead (article has none), I realized I had nothing concrete to go on. Miniapolis 13:38, 21 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 21. Snotbot  t • c »  14:19, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Uzbekistan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:42, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:42, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:42, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:43, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I can't tell if this is a real book or one of those Wikipedia sourced ones, but it exists for what that's worth: Battles Involving the Safavid Empire: Battle of Chaldiran, Battle of Ghazdewan, Battle of Dimdim, Battle of Marv, Battle of Damghan 2010 ISBN-13: 9781157078531. 24.151.116.25 (talk) 15:52, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep In addition to the account on pages 325-327 of the book linked in the article [5], accounts can be found at [6], [7], [8], The Dictionary of Battle and Sieges suggests an alternative spelling of Ghujduwan which leads to accounts at [9], [10]. 24.151.116.25 (talk) 17:12, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for looking (and for sourcing the pages from which the article is copied) but those sources you're citing are all passing mentions, not significant coverage. We're still left with the fact that the battle took place in 1512—very little more, and not enough (in my view) for a standalone article. All the best, Miniapolis 15:42, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Just noted that the Persian version of the article in Persian Wikipedia has [11] as its main reference. The Persian translation of the book has been published by an important publication house.Farhikht (talk) 18:16, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Also note that maybe G‘ijduvon is an alternative name for the place of battle.Farhikht (talk) 18:24, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar · · 15:25, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Question. It is a content fork of what? Content forks should usually be merged back together. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:32, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Potential keep -- Assuming the source cited is a real book, this is a valid (if poorly presented) article. If the book is reliable, it will have sources, probably in the form of Persian or Urdu histories or chronicles. On the other hand, the name will be a transliteration from Persian or some other oriental language. Such transliteration is fraught with difficulties. Are we sure that we do not have another article on the battle under a different spelling? Peterkingiron (talk) 16:17, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

To answer SmokeyJoe first, ((Campaignbox Babur)) has many obscure battles which have apparently already been deleted; this is one of them. A merge to Babur would probably work; while it has a refimprove tag, it's in much better shape than this page. Peterkingiron, I don't think a single source meets WP:GNG. All the best, Miniapolis 18:21, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Potential keep: The information is interesting and relevant. Additional authorities required to verify accuracy. Kabirat (talk) 06:07, 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. (non-admin closure) czar · · 15:17, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Binders full of women[edit]

Binders full of women (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)

First AFD was no consensus. Second was "keep" but largely had everyone parroting "it's notable" to each other. The term was only used once, and got only a brief flurry of coverage over a one-week period. After that, it was completely forgotten, leaving no impact. WP:NOTNEWS, WP:NEO. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 14:07, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Yes, it does sound like a one-day wonder. NEO, NOTNEWS etc. Best to do such AfD's on a quiet holiday week in August, however... if you want it buried quietly! Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:53, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:33, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:33, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:33, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:33, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Surely the best time is to CSD something at about 3am Christmas Day? Anyway, Redirect to Second U.S. presidential debate of 2012 as before - it's a valid search term (come on, if you see something on a T-shirt, odds are someone will type it into Wikipedia) but the coverage was fleeting and not sustainable for a full article. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 15:35, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and redirect. Not only is the subject not sufficiently notable for an article, but the current text has no place on Wikipedia, even in archives. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 19:19, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge and Redirect to Mitt_Romney_presidential_campaign,_2012#Little_Face_Mitt_and_Other_Memes. On reconsideration, Keep. This phrase has more staying power than I thought at first. In addition to February's Jeopardy usage referenced in the article, in June a Washington Post correspondent likened a less-than-impressive Miss America contestant's response to Gov. Romney's: "'The income inequality question is difficult enough on its own,' writes Post opinion columnist Alexandra Petri. “When it was posed to Mitt Romney back during the debates, he wound up coming up with Binders Full of Women. And ever since it hit the public consciousness, that 40 percent figure has been inspiring people to insert their feet into their mouths and wiggle them around.'" Miss Utah’s Scatterbrained Answer to the Pay Gap. A number of books about the campaign have also deemed the binders episode significant: [12], [13], [14]. 24.151.116.25 (talk) 21:00, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. The Jeopardy episode and others show that the phrase is still known by the general public. Additionally, this phrase affected the campaign significantly, by making women's rights a prominent issue. C.f. You Didn't Build That. --Crazyfirex (talk) 01:03, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Still notable and important. As this books.google search shows there are already 8 books on the 2012 election and they all mention it and I'm sure have a page or two at least. It's got good references; I don't know if any of the ones I added at the talk page were added to the article. But these should have been:

• Daily Mail calls it one of the best quotes of the year; 12/9/12
• Mirror pointing out as one of top 5 gaffes that lost him the election; 11/7/12
• The Guardian: Does President Obama need some 'binders full of women'? 2/12//13

Other 2013 references include: Washington Post, June 2013 (several on the same topic), NBC June 2013, Sam Houston State University newspaper June 2013. The phrase will be hanging around long after the following ones which have articles are forgotten (in fact, I've never heard of any of them): And I don't care what it is, Mayberry Machiavelli, Don't Just Vote, Get Active, Series of tubes, etc. If you are looking for something to delete, these look like a good place to start. This 3rd AfD seems like a persistent case of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. CarolMooreDC - talk to me🗽 02:00, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - First of all, I have some reflections on this nomination. I think representing the keep comments from the previous AfD as "parroting" is unfair and inaccurate. If anything, the four "Redirect per TDA" comments might have actually been parroting (or parodying?). The phrase "Binders full of women" was used only once by Mr. Romney, but was used hundreds if not thousands of more times by other people, even recently. It was not completely forgotten after one week.

There are numerous, prominent sources with which to establish notability and the article has substantive content. There are several books that discuss the phrase, for example here, here, here, here,here, here, here, and here. I also found 49 newspaper articles that have mentioned the phrase just this year, in the US, Europe, Australia and Asia. Here's one from less than a week ago. I found mentions in 747 newspaper articles from last year. Finally, I found 31 newspaper articles that use the phrase "Binders Full of Women" in their headlines. It was even discussed on 26 February 2013 on MSNBC's Hardball with Chris Matthews, mentioning its use on Jeopardy as a category. Also reported here.

Binders full of women has been a topic of discussion on Fox News, CNN, MSNBC, NBC, CBS, BBC and NPR. It's been discussed by Jim Leher, Charlie Rose, Don Imus, Bill O'Reilly, Lou Dobbs, Anderson Cooper, Savannah Guthrie, Al Sharpton, Norah O'Donnell, Rachel Maddow, Brian Williams and Barack Obama to name but a few. It's also an internet meme.

It seems that there is a lasting effect. People are still talking about it. What made it notable is the person who said it and the political climate at the time it was said (see War on women). It was an absolutely a foot-in-mouth moment and the media took notice, and is still taking notice. We can't reasonably expect volumes of scholarly analysis on those four hysterically unfortunate words. The fact that several books, newspapers, magazines, broadcast news organizations, blogs and social networks are still repeating it, more than establishes notability for our purposes. - MrX 16:37, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I don't know what I could add to the thorough arguments made above, and the article itself which is well sourced. Comments like, "Best to do such AfD's on a quiet holiday week in August, however... if you want it buried quietly!" and "Surely the best time is to CSD something at about 3am Christmas Day?" imply that a regular consensus would be against deletion. The rest of the arguments to delete, like "no impact" are so obviously untrue. heather walls (talk) 17:49, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Ongoing coverage in reliable sources make this pass both WP:EFFECT and WP:PERSISTENCE. Retrospective analyses and 'what went wrong'-type write ups will continue to make reference to this incident (we'll see more of these in the run-up to the 2016 elections). Gobōnobō ^{+ c} 23:25, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I remember when this came in and it was really funny at the time. I love the t-shirt picture. I still feel as I did then, that someone should go discover some of the women in those "binders" and then link articles back to this one. I would love to know what he meant, because he said it with such conviction. There's no question this term is part of the historical record now, but Wikipedia is the right place to pick it apart and dissect it into what the term represented when it was said. My gut feeling is that there IS a binder somewhere, and I would love to know who is in it, and who compiled it, and why. Jane (talk) 08:03, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - I've explained my position in two prior AfDs, two and a half merge proposals and repeated dramafests on the talk page. I have not changed my opinion. There is plenty of shit on Wikipedia for people to not like. If we delete it all, we'll be left with one very short article with one bland sentence that water might be wet, though some^[who?] reject the objectivist bias inherent in the statement. This is not about Romney. If those who hated Romney were to pick a topic to have an article to demonstrate why they hate him, this wouldn't be it. The number of people who decided to vote against him based on this topic is probably smaller than the number of people who voted for him based on the shape of his nose. There is more than enough coverage to show that this phrase was notable. There is more than enough to show that it is notable. There can never be enough coverage for anyone to like it. Sorry. - SummerPhD (talk) 18:58, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and trout nominator for misrepresenting badly arguments of the previous AfD and ignoring what was discussed actually there. Here is what User:Carolmooredc found in February 2013, in the previous AfD:

Plus the others found above by the same editor, etc. Hardly a "brief flurry". --Cyclopia^talk 14:00, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy keep and a second serving of trout. Gamaliel (talk) 16:50, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment We don't have a clear speedy keep reason in play. Please explain your reason for !voting "keep". - SummerPhD (talk) 16:56, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • The overabundance of reliable sources makes this an obvious keep. Gamaliel (talk) 17:24, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - I'm going to remind people of WP:NTEMP, This has certainly proven to have a long lasting usage, which to the uninformed, WP should be here to explain. But in WP terms, that is not necessary. This was the driving beat of news and internet activity following the statement. Its a partisan thing that the Romney side wishes and wishes would go away--would have gone away before the election, Thus I suggest the act of trying to remove this element of history from WP is WP:POV. So I throw another Trout at the nominator and the partisans who repeatedly attack this article. Trackinfo (talk) 18:16, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, nothing to add. Ijon (talk) 21:11, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• After seeing the variety of reliable sources appearing some time after the event, I'm convinced enough to change to Keep as well. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:02, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Ahem. Hammer is usually on point. However, as I wrote only back in March of this year, "The result was keep. There does not seem to be a big consensus -- this article is likely to remain controversial -- but it's enough. User:Carolmoredc made especially good arguments." Consensus does not change so fast in four months. Snow keep per WP:SNOW. Bearian (talk) 20:13, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • binders full of keep? *rimshot* --Cyclopia^talk 07:00, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 23:47, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Satoru Kashiwase[edit]

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

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

Contested PROD. Concern was The club he played against in the Emperor's Cup is not fully-professional as it is not a J. League or J. League Division 2 club. Therefore this page fails WP:NFOOTY and WP:GNG. PROD was contested by a user who I suspect is a sockpuppet of the article's creator without providing a reason. Sir Sputnik (talk) 14:02, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 14:03, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. GiantSnowman 14:51, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:35, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:35, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:35, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:36, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - has yet to play in a professional club or for the national team. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 01:47, 29 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 Dan Hausel. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 23:47, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Seiyo Shorin-Ryu Karate and Kobudo[edit]

Seiyo Shorin-Ryu Karate and Kobudo (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)

Notability has not been established. All the references refer to everything but the subject and it appears to refer to only one small group. Peter Rehse (talk) 13:36, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 13:36, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as non-notable. This is a long, well-written, and referenced article (mind you, I disagree with a fair amount of its general history of karate, but still) that didn't show up as a copyvio in a simple search, and I regret seeing such an article cut, but nonetheless there's just no evidence of any notability for what appears to be a local style begun in 1999. JJL (talk) 19:12, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect/Merge to Dan Hausel This style is not notable and most of the sources have nothing to do with the style since they predate the style's creation. However, the style's founder has an article that was kept primarily because of his work as a geologist. The style is mentioned in the article and a redirect seems reasonable. Papaursa (talk) 19:19, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Dan Hausel. This style does not pass WP:MANOTE and a redirect would take care of any searches.Mdtemp (talk) 17:13, 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 delete. I'm willing to userfy if someone can use it, and as noted this information still exists in the history of Acupunture. However, other than a vague wave to search engine results, there has been no showing of independent notabilty. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 13:17, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Usage of acupuncture in the military[edit]

Usage of acupuncture in the military (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Seems like an unnecessary spinout from Acupuncture, possibly intended as a POV-fork to lend legitimacy to an alternative medical practice. Brainy J ~✿~ (talk) 13:34, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:25, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:25, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think the author did some good work here, but it is mis-labeled. Two possible notable topics this material could form the basis of are "Battlefield Acupuncture" - a specifically American development that is notable, or better yet "Richard Niemtzow" the notable MD responsible for the battlefield acupuncture phenomenon as well as a few significant studies on acupuncture effectiveness. I request this not be deleted, but that the author use this material for a more specific, focused article on one of the two topics I mentioned, then delete this article.Herbxue (talk) 05:02, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge somewhere else - this looks very like it was carved out of another article. Don't delete, but find the right place for it - David Gerard (talk) 16:25, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The material is already in the history of the acupuncture article, specifically here Talk:Acupuncture#RfC:_Should_acupuncture_in_the_military_be_included.3F, we don't need this article to exist to merge that text, IRWolfie- (talk) 15:38, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete This is a synthesis of sources to create a new topic. Only one of the sources is a secondary source, mostly about Col. Richard Niemtzow not acupuncture in the military as a topic (the rest are primary), and its a routine news story at that. A sign of notability of acupuncture in the military would be an academic book on the topic, for example. IRWolfie- (talk) 15:38, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I find that actually pretty convincing. Redirect to Acupuncture (I have an aversion to breaking a URL wherever feasible) - David Gerard (talk) 19:13, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

my two cents is that this information, if not already, should be put into an existing acupuncture page. Cap020570 (talk) 20:32, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The question of content going into the acupuncture article should be left to the current RfC I think, else we have a situation where an AfD discussion is trying to trump an ongoing RfC discussion. IRWolfie- (talk) 23:38, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

you're right! I didn't follow the link over to the acupuncture page! Cap020570 (talk) 00:40, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge is the reasonable outcome. Bearian (talk) 20:08, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: OR and synthesis, and POV fork. Material cobbled together from various inrelated news sources to create a topic that does not exist in the secondary literature. Sources do not meet WP:MEDRS, and are almost entirely primary sources. Already rejected for inclusion at the main Acupuncture article, so a merge is not likely. Fringe promotion of no encyclopedic value. Delete in its entirety. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 20:46, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: Clearly notable topic with significant coverage in numerous independent sources (just do a Google search for the "Acupuncture" and "Military"). There is no consensus to merge this to Acupuncture. -A1candidate (talk) 21:05, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ITSNOTABLE is not borne out by the WP:LOTSOFSOURCES, and WP:GOOGLEHITSproves nothing. I see no reliable independent secondary sources discussing the topic at all. It pure OR and synth. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 21:43, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete--Ymblanter (talk) 19:34, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ulusel Rahid[edit]

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

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

Article is an autobiography recreated after Rahid Ulusel was speedily deleted. Brainy J ~✿~ (talk) 12:40, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Azerbaijan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:22, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:22, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:22, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:22, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:22, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete unless evidence of notability turns up. Hairhorn (talk) 17:13, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Nothing in GS. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:27, 29 June 2013 (UTC).[reply]
• Delete. Nothing in GS. Nothing in GB other than his own books. The article exists on Azerbaijani Wikipedia, but is also totally unsourced there. Fails WP:GNG and WP:PROF #1-#9. And it's an autobiography . -- 202.124.75.14 (talk) 02:36, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. See also WP:Articles for deletion/Rahid Ulusel from July last year. -- 202.124.72.6 (talk) 06:27, 29 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 and rename. LFaraone 00:40, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

List of albums titled Greatest Hits Live[edit]

List of albums titled Greatest Hits Live (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Completing good faith nomination by IP editor 166.147.104.20, whose rationale was posted on the article's talk page and is included verbatim below. On the merits, I have no real opinion, except to note that this article feels much more like a disambiguation page than a proper list. The fact that we have so many articles on albums of the same name means that we likely need something to sort them out - is this list that something? Hell if I know. But it's worth exploring, perhaps. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 12:28, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note also that the title Greatest Hits Live redirects to this list. FYI. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 12:29, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Can anybody explain what is significant enough about listing all albums named "Greatest Hits Live" that it warrants it's own WP page? This just seems like unnecessary clutter to me. I nominate this for deletion. 166.147.104.20 (talk) 00:09, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Flimsy gathering. "List of albums whoes title begins with 'h'". Ceoil (talk) 12:32, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:19, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:20, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• This seems to be at its core a standard disambiguation page of topics sharing the same name, and so should be retitled and reformatted as such rather than deleted. postdlf (talk) 16:32, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I largely agree with Postdlf, this is basically a disambiguation page, but unlike other album titles that have multiple targets, I wonder how likely is it that someone will search for 'Greatest Hits Live' without knowing who the artist is. On the basis that some readers may search on 'greatest hits live', we should keep it. --Michig (talk) 17:25, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep As a disambig page. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 18:15, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and move to Greatest Hits Live and restructure it as a disambiguation page. Michaelzeng7 (talk) 20:18, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and move per Michaelzeng7, but without two entries which are only partial matches. Clarityfiend (talk) 22:11, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Move to Greatest Hits Live per Michaelzeng7. This is not a valid topic, but it is useful as a disambiguation page as a list of items with the same title. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 02:30, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 04:01, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Tannaz Lahiji[edit]

Tannaz Lahiji (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)

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

Fails WP:ARTIST. I've found nearly nothing on the subject in Persian. Englsih and Italian sources are just online galleries and WP mirrors. Farhikht (talk) 10:50, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. Farhikht (talk) 10:54, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:10, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:11, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:11, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Non-notable WP:advert. Plot Spoiler (talk) 16:00, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Non-notable WP:advert. Kabirat (talk) 06:04, 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 delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 04:00, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Bamboo Feed Reader[edit]

Bamboo Feed Reader (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)

Raising for deletion as the subject has little to no coverage by reliable third party sources, save for a passing mention on pcmag.com. AMFMUHFVHF90922 (talk) 10:18, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:53, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:53, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Not significant enough to pass WP:GNG for a stand-alone article. A web search only finds trivial and passing mentions that list this software among others. Michaelzeng7 (talk) 20:24, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete': There is no significant coverage. SL93 (talk) 21:44, 28 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 speedily deleted by User:INeverCry under criterion G4. (non-admin closure) • Gene93k (talk) 15:48, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

PhoneJS[edit]

PhoneJS (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., fails WP:GNG no hits when searching [[15]] Hell In A Bucket (talk) 09:27, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I see this has already been through AFD, I am retagging csd. Do not know how to close here though. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 09:30, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. It's not clear that G4 applies, since there was no discussion in the first AFD. The G4 guidelines need to be clearer, frankly. Hairhorn (talk) 14:56, 28 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) 23:12, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

William Wood (United States Army officer)[edit]

William Wood (United States Army officer) (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)

Unremarkable army officer - tagged for notability in 2010. Can we decide one way or another? Believe he fails WP:SOLDIER Gbawden (talk) 12:25, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. He fails SOLDIER, and Wikipedia is not a memorial. His death made the news,[16] but sadly he will not have the opportunity to become notable. Clarityfiend (talk) 22:35, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:02, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:02, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment No longer the highest ranking fatality in Iraq. Colonel appears to be the highest rank of any U.S. military deaths in the Iraq war. According to an Associated Press database of U.S. military deaths in Iraq, at least eight other Army or Army Reserve colonels have died in the now-5-year-old war. At least one of those was promoted to that rank posthumously. [17] Hawkeye7 (talk) 03:58, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment, the Associated Press has a searchable database and based on its search results, there were 32 LTC and COLs, of which 10 were COLs that were killed in Iraq; in addition there was one Navy Captain killed in Iraq as well. The only way to determine which is the highest ranked, is to see who had the highest time in grade, as I am not aware of any general or flag officers killed in Iraq. Now general or flag officers would be considered notable per WP:SOLDIER, Colonels or Navy Captains are not considered presumed notable (as general and flag officers go through congressional approval and are technically presidential appointments here in the United States). The question is does the subject of this AfD meet WP:GNG, or received considerable coverage outside of the subject's death (which is questionable). Now if the subject only received significant coverage due to their death than I can understand WP:NOTMEMORIAL being applicable.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 06:06, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar · · 17:25, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 06:55, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete unfortunately, the war made a lot of widows and orphans, but WP is not a memorial. I see the subject received a purple heart, but that alone does not confer notability.  Ohc ^¡digame!_{¿que pasa?} 09:13, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Coverage seems to only relate to his death, meaning he does not meet WP:SIGCOV. Wikipedia is not a memorial. EricSerge (talk) 15:09, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep. There are serious structural problems with WP:SOLDIER that does not tally with WP:GNG, the bar for inclusion is to high. WP:NOTMENORIAL is not a deletion guideline, or valid reason for deletion. With regards to WP:GNG Colonel is not an insignificant rank, and he gains some notability for having died. Overall, there is enough sourcing to have it kept. It is not a privacy invasion of a low level person because he is dead. The topic is event complete because of his death. Barney the barney barney (talk) 18:59, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Er...the bar of WP:SOLDIER is deliberately high, as it's intended to "catch" notable personages who are missed by WP:GNG. If somebody passes WP:GNG/WP:NPERSON then whether they meet WP:SOLDIER or not is irrelevant - WP:SOLDIER only comes into play for people who aren't otherwise notable. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:21, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Technically, while WP:NOTMEMORIAL isn't a deletion guideline per se, it's classified as stuff your not supposed to include. People cite WP:NOT all the time as valid reasons for deletion. Michaelzeng7 (talk) 20:29, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What sourcing? There is a broken CNN.com link, a one paragraph announcement of this death by Gannett, and a self-published memorial page. Am I missing something? EricSerge (talk) 20:35, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - War is a sad thing, but unfortunately, we just don't have enough available sourcing to write an article for every solider with a respectable rank that died in action. Wikipedia is not a memorial. Usually, WP:SOLDIER is a good guideline to follow to judge the notability of these people. I see no reason why we shouldn't follow it for this one person. Michaelzeng7 (talk) 20:43, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Sad but fails WP:SOLDIER....William 20:24, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 23:48, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Lëvizja Zgjohu[edit]

Lëvizja Zgjohu (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 article is pure propaganda.It violates all rules of Wikipedia and it is simply a partisan attack on organization and that's is why it has no place here Vargmali (talk) 17:34, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Completed incomplete nom. — Train2104 (talk • contribs) 22:19, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albania-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:05, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:05, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 18:03, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

keep I don't read Albanian, but I would suggest that organization under a "partisan attack" from major political forces must be notable. In any case, satisfies WP:GNG. Staszek Lem (talk) 22:16, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar · · 06:38, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete the article itself is completely incoherent, and all the sources are WP:NOTENGLISH.  Ohc ^¡digame!_{¿que pasa?} 09:15, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• WP:NOTENGLISH is about Wikipedia articles, not sources. Phil Bridger (talk) 11:40, 28 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 merge to Lip augmentation. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 09:41, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Lip plumper[edit]

Lip plumper (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:NOTE. Unreferenced. Flat Out let's discuss it 11:21, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:02, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Here's an example of encyclopedic coverage of this topic: The Encyclopedia of Cosmetic and Plastic Surgery. AFD is not cleanup. Warden (talk) 17:30, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - that is a good point, but the subject is covered here. Perhaps a merge to that article would be betyter than keep? Flat Out let's discuss it 04:30, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• The topic here is a cosmetic, not surgery. It's more like lipstick, lip gloss or lip balm, but notice that they are three articles, not one, and so there's not a clear merge target. Warden (talk) 05:56, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to Lip augmentation. There's not much there, but is marginally notable, so we should merge. Bearian (talk) 18:38, 26 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 · · 06:34, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm with Bearian. This is a plausible search term.—S Marshall T/C 08:25, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - merge is fine with me, if I withdraw my nomination can this proceed. Flat Out let's discuss it 09:39, 28 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 Snow Keep. Mark Arsten (talk) 23:14, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

List of Pixar film references[edit]

List of Pixar film references (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)

Inherently trivial, fancrufty, original research list. Perfect for a Pixar wiki, but not appropriate for an general-purpose encyclopedia. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 06:17, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. czar · · 06:46, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. czar · · 06:46, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per all the arguments I made the last time there was an WP:IDONTLIKEIT nomination. We cover what RS'es cover, and these are well and truly covered in secondary, independent, reliable sources. This nomination is problematic in that there's no new argument, policies haven't changed, and the debate was not particularly disputed last time. Jclemens (talk) 06:51, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, because this article has lots of good sources. (Kind of what Jclemens said.) dogman15 (talk) 08:24, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - per Jclemens. öBrambleberry of RiverClan 14:05, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Jclemens. If this article is kept, we should probably separate the footnotes that describe where a reference occurs from the actual sources. Michaelzeng7 (talk) 20:49, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: Notable topic. SL93 (talk) 21:46, 28 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 Kelantan FA#Supporters . Mark Arsten (talk) 03:56, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Red Mania[edit]

The Red Mania (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 supporters group. No claim or evidence of in depth coverage in indepedent reliable sources. No independent references. Nothing obvious in google. Redirect to Kelantan FA reverted by creator. Stuartyeates (talk) 03:42, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. czar · · 06:45, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. czar · · 06:47, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Kelantan FA#Supporters as a possible search term, but not independently notable. GiantSnowman 14:53, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:43, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect per above. Non-notable support group, but a possible search term. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 03:51, 30 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. LFaraone 00:41, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Shia view of Muawiyah I[edit]

Shia view of Muawiyah I (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 page is a poorly sourced POV fork of Muawiyah I; some of it appears to be original research. It does not adhere to NPOV. Everything that needs to be said is already said in the article on Muawiyah I. The article on Muawiyah I is heavily loaded with the anti-Umayyad POV. So this one is redundant. The best thing to do would be to turn this into a redirect. Toddy1 (talk) 23:46, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:05, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:05, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Another one of Striver's Answering-Ansar/al-islam.org WP:OR creations. MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:58, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, as it is Shia view article so it will have Shia Sources. Then out of 10 (actually 16) only 3 are from Answering-Ansar/al-islam.org --Sayed Mohammad Faiz Haider^tc_s 07:05, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 19:48, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 02:54, 28 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) 03:54, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Gant-Man[edit]

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

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

No independent references, all claims to significance are spurious, like being "assistant producer" on some particular recordings, mainly his own remixes, or working on "smash" songs, with no evidence that such songs are smashes. A quick Google search turns up almost nothing at all that isn't a self-created website. Very little evidence this person meets the requirements at WP:GNG. Jayron32 02:54, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete doesn't appear to pass WP:MUSIC. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 05:02, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. --Viennese Waltz 07:55, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:43, 28 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) 23:15, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

MV Golden Jubilee[edit]

MV Golden Jubilee (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 pleasure boat. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 18:07, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - does not appear to meet general guidelines of WP:N. Eddie.willers (talk) 20:07, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:47, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:47, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:47, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Note that the boat is MV Golden Jubilee and I have moved the article to that title per the usual naming standard for ships.) - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:24, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: A search for the ship under its current name turns up what appear to be only two sources that aren't either tourist-guide entries or primary sources: [18] and [19]. Although this barely squeaks over the "100 feet/100 tons" is-usually-notable thingamajigger, that's not an actual standard; however, a search for the ship under its previous name, Lesisure Scene, turned up this, which may be barely enough to squeak it over the line, as it's substantial coverage in a reliable source, which combined with the Lloyd's entry passes the 'two sources' standard as well. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:29, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - not convinced that the sources given - even including the Ship & Boat International publication - count as "substantial coverage" for GNG. GraemeLeggett (talk) 05:12, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 02:54, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete the extra sources found by Bushranger do not, IMHO, amount to enough coverage to pass the "significant coverage" threshold at WP:GNG. --Jayron32 02:56, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Non-notable boat. I don't see the notability from the two above sources. SL93 (talk) 21:48, 28 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) 23:18, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Conor Cox[edit]

Conor Cox (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)

Poorly sourced article and may not meet WP:ATHLETE guidelines Josh1024 (talk) 07:04, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:21, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:21, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar · · 17:38, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 02:52, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete if no reliable sources are added to establish notability--Benfold (talk) 06:24, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Construction management. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 13:10, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Contractor progress payment schedule[edit]

Contractor progress payment schedule (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 sure if this can qualify as an individual article. Maybe a merge would be appropriate? Josh1024 (talk) 20:51, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:42, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Possibly merge/redirect to Payment schedule, but delete if deemed inappropriate (I can't find any other targets). Ansh666 18:12, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Okay, then keep and move per Cullen below. Ansh666 05:21, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Okay, I'm officially very confused. Ansh666 17:07, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• merge and redirect as above. Stuartyeates (talk) 20:37, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LFaraone 00:46, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep and move to "Contractor progress payment". A Google search under this slightly broader title shows that the topic is widely discussed in U.S. law regarding major construction contracts. As a licensed contractor for 26 years, I know the importance and notability of this topic. The suggested redirect article has nothing whatsoever to do with this topic. This is not a financial instrument, it is a regularly scheduled payment for performance of a long term contract, based on meeting predefined benchmarks. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:29, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 02:43, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• No, don't call it a "contractor progress payment". The same thing has other names in other countries. Here in the UK it would be called a "stage payment" or an "interim payment", and if you said "contractor progress payment" people wouldn't know what you were talking about. I agree the concept, in relation to building projects, should be covered on Wikipedia. To me, the encyclopaedic topic and the obvious merge target is construction management, an article that appears to be in need of quite a bit of development in other ways.—S Marshall T/C 11:17, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete / merge to Construction management, little more than a dicdef. Hairhorn (talk) 19:18, 28 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) 03:49, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Fran Hauser[edit]

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

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

I started culling through the article only to find that despite having 20 sources, the sources did not support the article's contents, did not even mention the article-subject or only briefly mentioned her in passing. Though she has a distinguished career, does not appear to be notable by our standards. CorporateM (Talk) 01:41, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

• Delete WP is not a soapbox for Time Inc's corporate communications department. I agree that none of the sources back up her notability - she isn't even mentioned in the vast majority. The principal contributor has worked nearly exclusively on this article, plus a few edits of another Time Inc executive, so it's arguably WP:COI  Ohc ^¡digame!_{¿que pasa?} 09:24, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There is no WP:COI as I don't work at Time Inc. This vote shouldn't count. --agringaus 10:48, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:41, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment According to the user's home page, they work for the same company (Time Inc.) as the subject of the article. Dismas|^(talk) 04:26, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

>Once again, we don't work for the same company. Please change the vote then. --agringaus 09:26, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Agringaus, first please sign your posts here. It makes it easier to see who said what if there is a signature at the end of a comment. You can do this by typing four tildes after your comments. When you click on the "Save page" button, those tildes will be converted to your signature with a time stamp.

Thanks, signed all posts. --agringaus 09:27, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

That said, I'm sorry but I don't really have the time to dedicate to fleshing out an article and chasing down references. I edit WP from my real life work and most of my WP work is answering questions and reverting vandalism. I do have two suggestions for you though. First, the easiest way for this article to be kept is for you to remove any promotional language while adding in references to reliable sources. And secondly, if it does get deleted, ask an admin to place the text in a sandbox in your userspace. That way you still have most/all of the text and you can refine it before posting it to the main WP space. Just because it gets deleted, doesn't mean that it can never been posted again. You may want to go through WP:AFC next time though. Peace, Dismas|^(talk) 02:31, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Why delete? I'll improve it overall. Regarding deletion of of Personal Life section. I should probably remove this section from Oprah, Martha Stewart, Marissa Mayer's pages, and mention editors from my article? Because I looked at those before creating Personal Life section. --agringaus 09:26, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

• Delete. So she is a president of a division of Time Inc.. I don't believe that that, or anything else in the article, qualifies her as notable. Maproom (talk) 07:38, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The article is supported by verifiable references. Fran manages the largest digital publishing division, and runs charities and non-profit fundraising organizations that help children in need. As far as Wikipedia policy applies to Living Person's Bio and Notability, the article qualifies for status notable, but I'll improve it further. policies on notability --agringaus 09:52, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

• Weak Delete Not a dreadful article but id a BLP and there just isn't the real world references that we can rely to write a proper biography. None of the subjects biodata can be referenced to a reliable source and pretty much the referencing adds up to a big bunch of one line mentions or even no mention at all. Her appearance on a media influential list and induction into an industry hall of fame hint at notability but like a lot of marginally notable figures in new media there just isn't enough to get over the bar. Spartaz ^Humbug! 13:36, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

'...to go over the bar...' I'll improve the article, thanks for your comments. --agringaus 09:45, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

• Delete Nothing particularly notable about the person - what there is I don't think rises past WP:BIO. Perhaps her career will continue and she'll become notable, but not right now. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 08:58, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please familiarize yourself with the article before you conclude on notability

CorporateM, Thank you for pointing out on areas for improvement in my article. Before you reach a final consensus re:AfD, please understand that Conflict of Interest is obsolete. Otherwise, the article will be improved.

Please don't bite the newcomers. New members are prospective contributors and are therefore Wikipedia's most valuable resource.

• Delete - fails WP:BIO, sources do not demonstrate notability. Note to agringaus: there is no need to comment on every "delete", make your point once and leave it at that. Repeating your comments ad nauseam does not help your case. - ukexpat (talk) 14:52, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete after checking all sources I agree that there is not significant coverage, since the mentions of Hauser are trivial (and, as has been stated, several of them do not mention Hauser at all - although there has been some pruning of irrelevant sources since the article was first nominated, I think.) --bonadea contributions talk 15:49, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• I removed all the pretty boxes Spartaz ^Humbug! 18:15, 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. Mark Arsten (talk) 23:20, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Kathryn Sarah Scott[edit]

Kathryn Sarah Scott (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 Not notable musician, two of the references are dead links. Fails all counts of Wikipedia:MUSICBIO and thus WP:N SheffGruff (talk) 13:59, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Northern Ireland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:12, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:12, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:12, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep, I found some independent coverage of her works, see: "Hungry," in particular, sold more than 400,000 copies – an impressive figure for a worship recording.", [20] (Crosswalk.com), [21] (The Citizen), [22] (Christian Broadcasting Network). --Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 16:11, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 00:34, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep If we were to take the Crosswalk article at face value, she is highly influential in her genre, thus notable.  Ohc ^¡digame!_{¿que pasa?} 09:28, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep based on what I saw myself of the sources. Yes, it could be improved, but AfD is not for normal editing issues. Bearian (talk) 20:06, 2 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} 23:49, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Butterscotch (performer)[edit]

Butterscotch (performer) (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 obviously notable and fails WP:MUSICBIO by a mile. No recording deal, no chart success anywhere. Maybe just WP:TOOSOON but definitely not notable yet.  Velella  ^{Velella Talk}   21:28, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - This person may be notable for her taking 3rd place in America's Got Talent, an achievement possibly covered by many sources. According to the article itself, she also won 2 minor music competitions prior and did a tour with another notable ensemble. Just putting stuff on the table right now. Michaelzeng7 (talk) 22:10, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:52, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:52, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 18:02, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep or redirect to America's Got Talent (season 2); subject has received significant coverage from multiple non-primary reliable sources, but most are local reliable sources, such as the Sacramento Press, the State Hornet, and the Davis Enterprise. If this isn't found to be sufficient the normal course of action for contestants have been inline with WP:BLP1E, and a redirect to the event is created (in this case the season of the show that the subject of this AfD was a contestant on).--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 18:37, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 00:26, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Keep. sufficient enough for WP:BIO. MouthlessBobcat (talk) 00:49, 3 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. I am going to go ahead and close this based on WP:SNOWBALL. Article has greatly improved since the point it was nominated, including information that credibly grants notability. The only standing delete vote cites a lack of evidence from reliable sources, which has been provided since that delete comment was made. Safiel (talk) 03:01, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Jim Badra[edit]

Jim Badra (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 procedurally declined the PROD on the article, since the article had been earlier prodded and declined. In any event, notability is questionable. I am not familiar with the sport, nor with whether the Mr. World competition is a notable enough competition to grant the subject notability by the fact that he won it. Other than that, a Google search leads me to weak delete at the moment. Change to keep. Safiel (talk) 03:00, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - doesn't look like he meets WP:GNG to me, though I admit i'm not familiar with bodybuilding either. Ansh666 06:02, 20 June 2013 (UTC) Improved a lot, so Keep and improve further - I'm also like below concerned about WP:RS, but he seems notable enough at this point. Ansh666 16:57, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:11, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:12, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:12, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:12, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Shortage of evidence from reliable sources. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 14:41, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Substantial contributors to the article notice for review
• Keep. this article has been significantly updated with the required secondary & tertiary sources, requesting the nominating editor to Withdrawn by nominator - NikkosInc (talk) 19:46, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Note I should note that even if I was inclined to withdraw this AfD, I cannot as there are valid delete votes present. Just be patient for 5 more days and let this work itself out. As it stands right now, the article will probably survive this AfD as a no consensus. Safiel (talk) 16:53, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment A lot of the bodybuilding history has not been transferred onto the cloud for reference especially events that occurred prior to 1996- deleting this article will only contribute to less coverage of this history as it relates directly to World History- as bodybuilding has been a way for some nations to connect to others through this sport, Sometimes more than Olympic Athletes, Bodybuilders has been the iconic symbol of pride for nations and the iconic symbol of human development- dating before the Roman Era to Greek Era to Biblical - the development of the Human body was recorded in History and captured in Sculptures we see in museums (ie the Sculpture of David as it reflects the elite level of fitness of the human body of the time). So much of that history was lost, we should do our best to allow our history be preserved- especially the history that was pre-internet - for future generations to have references that our generation lost. - NikkosInc (talk) 20:08, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep without prejudice. I share RHaworth's concern that the article is lacking in reliable sources. There are currently four sources cited in the article: Muscular Development magazine, a local newspaper, published correspondence by a journalist, and the Arab Press. It's borderline, but since the article is so new, I'd rather give it some more time to develop. If, after a month or three, the sourcing problems are still there, then I say it's in order to open a second AfD. —C.Fred (talk) 20:35, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I first prod'ed this article. It has improved since then. The author would have been better to create a better draft first. --evrik ^(talk) 18:04, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 00:17, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]