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

The result was Keep as per unanimous consensus that affirmed notability as per Wikipedia's editorial requirements. A non-admin closure. And Adoil Descended (talk) 00:00, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wilt L. Idema[edit]

Wilt L. Idema (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. Fails WP:ACADEMIC. Sources listed include his own CV and a book in which he is listed as one of the authors, failing WP:SP. Only 6 GNews sources, 3 of which are from his school, and 2 of which are foreign language (only meaning that I can't verify their contents). Prolific writer, but I was unable to find any reviews or sources discussing the works. GregJackP Boomer! 23:55, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:32, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Question?. It is a bold step to nominate the BLP of a full Harvard professor for AfD. Would the nominator like to give us his assessment of the subject's citation record on Google scholar and Web of Knowledge in this low cited field? Xxanthippe (talk) 00:48, 7 June 2013 (UTC).[reply]
• Keep A Festschrift was published in his honor. This meets one of the requirements of WP:PROF, by showing that he is regarded as distinguished in his field. It also meets the requirements of the GNG--a book published about someone is a RS for notability. (btw, a Festschrift always lists the honoree as one of the authors, because that's one of the LC cataloging rules. Normally, it contains reprints of some of his papers as well as the papers of others published in his honor and prominently mentioning his work, and one or more long essays about him. ) I ask the nominee if they propose to nominate everything using sources they cannot themselves read. DGG ( talk ) 01:43, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose deletion WP:ACADEMIC says "Academics/professors meeting any one of the following conditions, as substantiated through reliable sources, are notable." At the Wilt Idema talk page I've added a list of six of the criteria which he meets. ch (talk)
• Keep per DGG. For convenience, here is a link to the Google Books page for the Festschrift mentioned by DGG: [1]. --Arxiloxos (talk) 03:54, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Membership in KNAW is enough for WP:PROF#C3 and for me, even if he hadn't also passed all those other criteria. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:27, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Snow Keep. To add to the above, his books are widely held by institutions (satisfying WP:PROF c1). for example: 667, 946, 349, 613, 207, etc. Might be appropriate for nom to withdraw this in the face of such conclusive evidence. Thanks, Agricola44 (talk) 15:01, 7 June 2013 (UTC).[reply]
• Note to Nominator: It is okay to cite to subject's own website for basic facts. So one of the criteria you note in your deletion suggestion, "Sources listed include his own CV and a book in which he is listed as one of the authors, failing WP:SP." doesn't really matter for an assessment of notability. These comments do relate to notability -- "Only 6 GNews sources, 3 of which are from his school, and 2 of which are foreign language (only meaning that I can't verify their contents). Prolific writer, but I was unable to find any reviews or sources discussing the works. " -- but you should know that Google News is not the best place to look for citations regarding academics. Looking in Google Scholar is slightly better but quite variable depending on field. I venture to say that "Chinese literature studies" is not an area that is going to be well represented in google scholar, so you probably want to try MLA or similar databases. If you can't access these to verify lack of notability for yourself then I would start with a notability template rather than an AFD -- because the search you described is not adequate for assessing notability or lack of it. --Lquilter (talk) 18:03, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Nom has not answered my question after the 24 hour sleep cycle about LP's citation record. I will answer myself: the cites are excellent for a low cited field and pass WP:Prof#1. In addition to the library holdings the festschrift shows clearly that the LP is a major authority in the field. Xxanthippe (talk) 01:18, 8 June 2013 (UTC).[reply]
• Absolute and total Keep -- at the top of the field of Chinese literature studies -- Festschrift and position definitely argue for notability as do the specific quotes cited attributing to his contributions. Far far above the cutoff for notability for a professor. Suggest early close if an uninvolved admin reads. -- Michael Scott Cuthbert (talk) 22:12, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Addendum: JSTOR lists at least a dozen reviews of Idema at JSTOR Beta Search Wilt Idema ch (talk) 19:12, 12 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 - nomination withdrawn (non-admin closure). Whpq (talk) 15:39, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

2015 Formula One season[edit]

2015 Formula One season (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)

Violation of WP:CRYSTAL - seems to far in the future. Uberaccount (talk) 22:58, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep It's the normal advance for these articles (around 20 months or so)- it shows the rule and course changes that will occur in 2015 - as this is the time that those items are set in stone. Note the previous nominations (in the box) are in the wrong order Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2015 Formula One season was the last one, and the result was keep.  Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 23:05, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Why are we back here? Haven't we just been through this a month ago and decided to keep it? Bretonbanquet (talk) 23:06, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy keep. We went through all of this only just a month ago. Dricherby (talk) 23:16, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Procedural speedy keep - has been through AFD 3 times as we've gotten progressively closer to 2015, the most recent being only a month ago. Way too soon to be reconsidering this. Stalwart111 23:31, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Keep 2015 is not too far ahead, therefore it isn't covered under WP:CRYSTAL. If this article was deleted, 2028 Summer Olympics could be deleted on the same grounds (although that is WP:POINT). Citrusbowler (talk) 23:34, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Keep per Dricherby, Stalwart111 and Citrusbowler. Also is now a well sourced article. —Gyaro–Maguus— 23:47, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

• I withdraw my nomination; I looked at the AfD listed as 2nd on the box (which occured this past July), which apprently is wrong. Just a note, however, it was deleted via WP:G4 4 times within 12 months. Uberaccount (talk) 01:59, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:G4 deletions are recreations of a deleted page that are substantially the same as the one that was deleted. If this page is substantially different, WP:G4 isn't relevant. Dricherby (talk) 08:14, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Move to close - nomination has been withdrawn. Stalwart111 10:59, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. SK#1: nom proposes non-deletion action (merge), no other deletion recommendations advanced. Please see Wikipedia:Proposed mergers to start a merge discussion. (non-admin closure) czar · · 05:46, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Iron Man 3 (video game)[edit]

Iron Man 3 (video game) (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)

Merge to Iron Man 3. The article fails to meet general notability guidelines. There is no reason that with the few reliable sources that exist, the content cannot be easily housed in its parent article. TriiipleThreat (talk) 22:20, 6 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 6. Snotbot  t • c »  22:46, 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) 00:27, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:27, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Iron Man 3 and redirect this page: There are not enough sources, or notable coverage, with substantial information to warrant an individual article. What has already been written on Iron Man 3 is perfectly fine, with possibly what little was added to this article, added there. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 00:59, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge with Iron Man 3: There is simply not enough coverage and information to support a standalone page. The list that was added to this page means nothing to people who are not intimately familiar with the material, and the rest can be (and mostly is) covered in a few sentences in the main article. -Fandraltastic (talk) 02:15, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Even with the list, a simple link to the Iron Man's armor (film) page would be sufficient, with context around the link. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 14:58, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Keep - Did the nominator follow through on WP:BEFORE? Did anyone even attempt to do any source searching? I didn't even have to get creative, a mere Google search of "Iron Man 3 video game" came up with all source of reliable sources, that have consensus that they are indeed reliable, at WP:VG/S.

1. IGN - Detailed Review
2. Game Informer - Detailed Review
3. Gamezebo - Detailed Review
4. Digital Spy - Brief Review
5. Slide to Play - Detailed Review
6. Touch Arcade - Detailed Review
7. Technology Tell - Detailed Article
8. USA Today even dedicated an entire story on it. This clearly meets the GNG. Sergecross73 msg me 15:57, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• I don't believe anyone is suggesting that the game does not warrant a mention on Wikipedia. However, you've done a good job of representing the issue here - all of those sources cover the same 4 or 5 pieces of information, leaving little room to expand an article beyond that. Add to that the fact that the game's brief window of relevance, as a marketing piece for the movie, has already passed. We would be left with an eternal stub, whereas including the game as a one or two paragraph subsection in the marketing section of the film's article allows it sufficient coverage. Per WP:NOPAGE, "a decision to cover a notable topic only as part of a broader page does not in any way disparage the importance of the topic." -Fandraltastic (talk) 16:49, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• These are but a handful of sources covering the same aspect of the topic, its reception. If there were more sources covering a larger array of topics, I would agree. The issue seems to come down to how many sources is enough to be considered "significant coverage".--TriiipleThreat (talk) 18:42, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• You guys aren't even trying. Its very easy to take details from reviews and use them to write "Gameplay" sections. I also noticed there are 2 sources in the article I didn't list, and more reviews at the games Metacritic page. There's plenty of sources/content to work with, and the Iron Man 3 main article is massive, making it a poor choice for a merge. AFD is not cleanup. Sergecross73 msg me 19:23, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Iron Man 3: The Official Game has many more areas that can be added into the article, such as the maps and descriptions of them, descriptions of the armor power-ups and their multipiers, and the story that is involved in the game among the four villians. With time and help from other editors this page could easily grow.Brian82027 (talk) 18:29, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Notability is determined by reliable WP:THIRDPARTY sources not WP:PRIMARY sources.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 18:35, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - article has been moved/redirected to Iron Man 3: The Official Game. Ansh666 21:48, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Sounds like a pretty horrible game, but a well-sourced horrible game. The AfD result should clearly be keep but merging (no clue where, the main movie page isn't a good idea IMO) is something that could be discussed on the talk page. Hobit (talk) 01:47, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - I have completely rewritten and greatly expanded the article, adding all of the sources I listed above. It is entirely different from its time of nomination, and there is plenty of content to cover now. (And there's still more to add too.) Please take this into consideration when giving stance. Thanks. Sergecross73 msg me 21:02, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and improve - at risk of citing WP:OTHERSTUFF, precedent seems to favor keeping the article. Also, per Sergecross, article is much improved since nomination. Ansh666 21:54, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Meets the GNG. 03:22, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
• Keep in light of improvements to article's content and sourcing. Meets GNG and seems to be capable of presenting significant amount of information that is independent of the topic of its parent article. AdventurousSquirrel (talk) 03:48, 9 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. SarahStierch (talk) 19:43, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dave Matthews Band tours[edit]

Dave Matthews Band tours (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 created this article back in 2006 when I was still a new editor and I've come to realize that this page just doesn't meet the standards at MOS:LIST. It's merely a list of when the band has gone on tour each year, but the tours themselves aren't notable (unlike List of U2 concert tours, for example) as the band is basically constantly touring throughout the year every year. Therefore, it's also a violation of WP:IINFO. –Dream out loud (talk) 22:32, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:24, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:24, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. My condolences. AdventurousSquirrel (talk) 03:56, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nomination. – Recollected • 02:37, 11 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. This debate seems clear. No prejudice against an article on the historical association.  — Crisco 1492 (talk) 10:35, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oxford Law Society[edit]

Oxford Law Society (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 doesn't assert any reason why this (relatively recently formed) society is notable (this article does not describe the original Oxford Law Society that flourished until the early end of the 1960s). Wikipedia is not a directory of all student societies. Statements in the article are not verifiable because of the lack of reliable sources. The article is to some extent a coat rack for naming commercial sponsors. The article may conflict with our BLP policy because it lists former officers by name without citing a source. Pointillist (talk) 22:30, 6 June 2013 (UTC) The list of former officers has now been removed - Pointillist (talk) 07:53, 7 June 2013 (UTC), and judging from the Verdict issue dates, the original society was still going in Summer 1969. - Pointillist (talk) 11:29, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - Given that this article had an overwhelming keep vote in the prior AfD (which did not appear to be highly contingent on the 1960's society), why do you believe that it should be deleted this time? Uberaccount (talk) 22:53, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks for asking. I'm not questioning the bona fides of those who !voted in the 2006 AfD, but there's no evidence that they were aware that this society (afaics formed in the late 1990s and not registered with the University until recently) was not the same as the University's original law society, which appears to have died out in the early at the end of the 1960s (according to SOLO searches for "Oxford University Law Society" and for "Oxford Law Society"). Furthermore, over the past seven years our standards for notability and verifiability have risen significantly – arguably in response to the rising importance of Wikipedia as a platform for people and organizations to promote themselves – so the context of an AfD decision in 2013 is very different from what it may have been in 2006. - Pointillist (talk) 07:06, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:22, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:22, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:23, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• delete As always, are outside sources paying substantial attention to this group? So far it seems not. Andy Dingley (talk) 01:18, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Very little coverage of this society and not enough to establish notability. Only 3 or 4 Google Book hits, for instance. As far as I can see it is not formally associated with the university in any way although of course many students will be members. Mcewan (talk) 07:35, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• delete no evidence current society is notable — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jonathan A Jones (talk • contribs) 07:39, 7 June 2013‎ (UTC)[reply]
• There does not seem to be strong case for the current society, but is there any reason why the article can not cover everything that has ever been called the "Oxford Law Society"? The former society may be much more notable and interesting, and then the current society could just be briefly mentioned. --Bduke (Discussion) 08:21, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• That wouldn't be unreasonable IMO. The back issues of Verdict (here) may help with the earlier history, and as Jurisprudence finals finish today any undergraduate contributors will be free to do the research ...if they've nothing better to do! - Pointillist (talk) 08:38, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Even including previous iterations of similarly named organizations, will there yet be enough coverage in reliable sources? AdventurousSquirrel (talk) 04:07, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• It isn't clear exactly when it died out, and don't think my previous comment ("in the early 1960s") can be correct. The full Solo record for Verdict says: "Summary Holdings: v.1:no.1(1963)-v.5:no.2(1969:summer); no.2(1984:Michaelmas)-2007:Hilary [incomplete];" so it looks more likely that it has died and been resurrected twice, once at the end of the 1960s and again at some time in the 1990s. The people who run it now may have access to resources from its earlier incarnation(s), and anyone with a Bodleian card can consult the back issues of Verdict at the St Cross Building. I don't expect to be in Oxford for a while, so I can't help. - Pointillist (talk) 11:29, 9 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 M. Night Shyamalan#Personal life. (non-admin closure) czar · · 07:04, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Blinding Edge Pictures[edit]

Blinding Edge Pictures (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" Nominated for deletion. The article was not improved and lacks verifiable sources violating Wikipedia rules and guidelines. The article has been tagged since July 2012 then August 2012 and was not improved at all. JWP Company (talk) 22:14, 6 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 6. Snotbot  t • c »  22:30, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:40, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:40, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:40, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect and partial merge of this stub to the company's notable founder at M. Night Shyamalan#Personal life where it makes sense to have this company mentioned and sourced. Due to its founder, the company does receive quite a bit of mention in reliable sources,[2] but, and quite likely due to the overshadowing notability of the founder and his projects, this company does not have independent coverage apart from M. Night. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 01:32, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect and merge per Schmidt. --Slgrandson (How's my egg-throwing coleslaw?) 22:06, 8 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. SarahStierch (talk) 19:44, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

David Mahmoudieh[edit]

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

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:FILMMAKER. Article offers no evidence of the notability of this person, and none of the references are adequate to establish any notability. Nearly nothing can be found in an internet search. Farhikht (talk) 22:28, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:38, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:38, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - He's working in the movie industry but has not received significant coverage in independent reliable sources to establish notability. -- Whpq (talk) 16:09, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - ditto. Bluehotel (talk) 08:22, 12 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. SarahStierch (talk) 19:45, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Schofield[edit]

Robert Schofield (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 am ambivalent though leaning towards a delete on this one. Subject was a corporate CEO, but does not seem to meet notability standards as per WP:GNG and WP:BIO. Thin secondary sources coverage was found on a Google search which does not seem to be in depth or significant. Maybe I'm being too hard nosed. What do you think? Ad Orientem (talk) 21:38, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The article's only source looks reliable and the article can still be expanded. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Citrusbowler (talk • contribs) 21:48, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Reply I am still not seeing much notability here. Wikipedia articles are not kept around on the hope that WP:N will be established later on. But I am open to being shown a stronger case for notability if I missed something. -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:13, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment he's not in Who's Who or Debrett's People of Today, which would establish notability, but inclusion in those sources is not exclusive so he may not have an entry yet still be notable. Barney the barney barney (talk) 22:33, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:34, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:34, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, per the references to profiles in two of the UK's foremost serious national newspapers that I've just added to the article, and the common sense that says that the chief executive of the UK's largest food manufacturer[3] is obviously a suitable subject for an encyclopedia article. Phil Bridger (talk) 22:34, 11 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.  — Crisco 1492 (talk) 10:35, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Airgates[edit]

Airgates (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:WEB. The sources:

• http://airgates.co.uk/faqs/ - SPS
• http://moresiteslike.net/top/rollercoasters - Directory entry
• http://shortyawards.com/category/TRAVEL - Contest entry (Received seven votes, 16th place overall)
• http://airgates.co.uk.clearwebstats.com/ - Info about page views, does not assist with WP:N
• http://www.rollercoastermedialibrary.com/Useful_links.html - Directory entry
• http://www.coaster-net.com/news/1842-new-attraction-for-chessington-world-of-adventures/ - Trivial mention
• http://www.themeparktourist.com/theme-park-website-directory - Directory entry
• http://www.facebook.com/airgatesuk/info - SPS
• http://www.screamscape.com/html/thorpe_park.htm - Trivial mention
• http://www.facebook.com/airgatesuk/info - SPS

The page presently reads as a PR blurb about a non-notable site. Was previously deleted under CSD A7, however, was recreated with the claim of a Shorty nomination, so A7 no long applies. I've already told the author that if reliable sources appear, then I have no issue withdrawning the nomination. Ishdarian 21:11, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete There has evidently been much effort expended to source this article. If the above is the best they could come up with... DavidLeighEllis (talk) 21:20, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Considering that this article is not well sourced and NPOV is bad, it should be deleted. Citrusbowler (talk) 21:50, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: I am infuriated that a clearly notable site is being rejected from Wikipedia. If Wikipedia is to succeed in its aim to grow and cover every topic possible, then behaviour like this is both irritating and hindering. Airgates.co.uk is a website about theme park news. How notable are you expecting it to be?! When we're thinking in terms of such a small and precise field, you can't expect to see mentions on big news corporations etc. Many of these sites are extremely notable in the field of theme park news. I don't know what more you'd expect from these sources, each one proves the point that is mentioned in the article (there is no point arguing against the fact Airgates came 16th, as the article clearly states it came 16th in the world, 2nd in the UK).

You have said that 3 of my sources are directories. The first and second are, but they give the concise description of Airgates that I referenced in my article. The third is not a directory but, as the site in question describes, a list of "sites that we believe stand out above the crowd". It gives each site a personal review and the review has been referenced in my 'reputation' section of the article. A valid source.

My article said how many views the page got each day, I referenced it with the information about page views. Why is this an issue?

As far as the trivial mentions are concerned, they both prove the point that Airgates is a source for news outlets such as Screamscape (one of the most famous theme park sites on the web) and coaster-net.

And the SPS mentions you point out give information that, once again, I referenced in my article.

I'm trying to make two points here:

a) All the sources are valid. While you can argue that being 16th in the Shorty Awards is 'irrelevant', how else can I source the statement 'Airgates came 16th'?

b) Airgates is one of the most notable sites in its field. You can't compare it in notability to BBC News or Huffington Post because they aren't in the same field of reporting.unsigned comment by User:RDN1F (User_talk:RDN1F) 22:57, 6 June 2013.

• "Notable" on Wikipedia has a specific meaning, which is explained at the general notability guidelines. To be notable, a subject must have "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". The words I've italicized are explained in more detail in the guidelines: please follow the link to find out exactly what they mean (in particular, Facebook isn't usually reliable). There are two uses of sources, which shouldn't be confused. One is to provide evidence for the claims made in the article; the other is to provide evidence of notability. For example, the site's own website can be used as evidence for non-controversial facts (e.g., that it's a travel site) but it doesn't provide evidence of notability (because it's not independent). Bear in mind that notability is not relative to any particular field. My own website is clearly the most notable website in the field of websites about me but that has no bearing on whether it meets Wikipedia's notability criteria. Please also note that it is not "your article": once you posted it to Wikipedia, you essentially gave it to the world. Dricherby (talk) 22:27, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:32, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:32, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as fails WP:GNG. The sources are unreliable and/or directories; I have deleted the two that were articles because they didn't contain the information they were cited for (both said that Airgates had carried some piece of news but did not say the site has a reputation for breaking news or that it aims to be a resource for other sites). We're talking about a website that gets fifty views a day and sixteenth place from seven votes from the entire world population: that isn't going to generate the sort of coverage we need to establish notability. Dricherby (talk) 23:49, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• I deleted a third source that failed verification. Dricherby (talk) 09:36, 7 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. SarahStierch (talk) 19:47, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ush Tobe[edit]

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

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

This article has been tagged as lacking sources since 2006 and I don't think the airport still exists. Having checked for sources I am not able to find any reliable sources. The article gives the location as 50°33′24″N 66°45′54″E / 50.556667°N 66.765°E / 50.556667; 66.765 and an elevation of 326 m. However some of the sources, Our Airports for example, gives a location at 50°34′34″N 66°44′32″E / 50.576199°N 66.742203°E / 50.576199; 66.742203 and an elevation of 300 m. The article also states that the runway is 1,480 m and has a concrete surface. Looking at both coordinates in Google Earth it can be seen that there is an aircraft icon on both locations but if there had been a concrete runway there then some evidence of that should remain. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 02:05, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. Sir Rcsprinter, Bt (warn) @ 09:06, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Kazakhstan-related deletion discussions. Sir Rcsprinter, Bt (gab) @ 09:06, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: While Google Earth is reliable, it could be outdated. Also, per WP:DELETE. WorldTraveller101(Trouble?/My Work) 01:24, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. This seems to be a previousl location of karaganda Airport. Presubmably defunct now. It is in principle notable, but I was not able to find reliable sources in Russian.--Ymblanter (talk) 06:52, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Notability is not temporary, so that the airport doesn't exist anymore doesn't matter. Do we have a notability standard that directly applies to airports? I would think they have presumed notability, but I can't find a guideline that says anything either way. --BDD (talk) 23:49, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• • If it was Sary-Arka Airport then that's a 478 km (297 mi) move, which seems a bit much. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 06:58, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    I do not think the location is correct. Ush-Tobe is an eastern suburb of Karaganda.--Ymblanter (talk) 07:46, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Perhaps the airport is not named after the locality? Try looking for airports near Vostochnyy, Kostanay. The national airport code seems to be KZ-0063. Funny ^Pika! 19:09, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• I did find this WP:WikiProject Airports/Notability, which would suggest that small airports are not inherently notable. Given the difficulty in finding whether this even exists, I don't think this would make it past WP:GNG. Funny ^Pika! 19:09, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J04n(talk page) 20:34, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Abandoned airfield with highly questionable sourcing. DavidLeighEllis (talk) 21:22, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:30, 6 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. J04n(talk page) 12:08, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Lvl Prasad Lolla[edit]

Lvl Prasad Lolla (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. Effectively WP:TRIVIA. --Jack | ^{talk page} 04:40, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Evano1van(எவனோ ஓருவன்) 06:00, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Evano1van(எவனோ ஓருவன்) 06:01, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment He doesn't appear to be notable as a cricketer, having apparently not played a first-class (or equivalent) match. The Madras Cricket Club he played for is not the one that was renamed Tamil Nadu 1970 and plays in the Ranji Trophy, since Prasad was only a child at that time. So any notability will have to come from his commentary and punditry, which I didn't check. Dricherby (talk) 09:37, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:21, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

• Delete. Certainly not notable as a cricketer per WP:CRIN, having searched for information regarding his punditry, the only conclusion I reached was even that doesn't give any form of notability per WP:GNG. Howzat?Out!Out!Out! (talk) 20:42, 29 May 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, J04n(talk page) 20:31, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. No evidence of notability, and it's likely none is going to be found any time soon. Ducknish (talk) 00:51, 9 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. SarahStierch (talk) 19:47, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Greater Birmingham & Solihull Local Enterprise Partnership[edit]

Greater Birmingham & Solihull Local Enterprise Partnership (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

promotional bureaucratic buzzwords, from beginning to end. DGG ( talk ) 23:58, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. czar · · 06:50, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. czar · · 06:50, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment we do not delete articles because the current content is poor or even dire. Instead, we delete the crap and/or improve the content, or redirect. Please state a valid reason for the proposed deletion. --Mais oui! (talk) 08:00, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep -- LEPs were the presnet government's replacement for Regional Development Agencies. They are still bedding in, but are potentially very significant organisations. The answer to a bad article is normally not to delete it, but to improve it. We ougfht to have articles on all 39 LEPs. Peterkingiron (talk) 12:55, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• delete fails WP:ORG. gnews reveals 4 passing mentions in local press. Needs substantial wider coverage. LibStar (talk) 04:24, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep -- Interest declared as the author. Can take 'government buzz words' on the chin as criticism. However, the LEPs are indeed the key vehicle for economic growth and have their own page. There should indeed be articles on all of the LEPs, it's surely unfair to punish those who are proactive? There has been extensive media coverage in national publications as shown in the citations on the work of the GBSLEP. dankzy (talk) 16:04, 3 June 2013(UTC) — dankzy (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
• Keep These organisations are of high importance to local people.--Abramsky (talk) 11:34, 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, Michaelzeng7 (talk) 20:17, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep AFD is not cleanup; references comport with WP:GNG. DavidLeighEllis (talk) 21:23, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep - withdrawn by nominator (non-admin closure) - MrX 20:54, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Tier-3[edit]

Tier-3 (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)

Inadequately sourced article about a company. I am unable to find independent sources that discuss the subject in any depth. Seems to fail WP:ORGDEPTH notability guidelines. - MrX 20:05, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Withdrawn - based on new sources. - MrX 20:54, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. - MrX 20:06, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. - MrX 20:06, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• KEEP - (Interest declared as the author) - Several press links/stories, references, reviews etc. have been added also independent analyst coverage/research from Bloor Research and Gartner (the magic quadrant 2011 and 2012) Only1weasel (talk) 20:42, 6 June 2013 (UTC) only1weasel[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. SarahStierch (talk) 19:48, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

2014–15 West Ham United F.C. season[edit]

2014–15 West Ham United F.C. season (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 about an upcoming sports season. Fails WP:GNG. - MrX 19:55, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as WP:CRYSTAL. The article claims that it will be their third season in the Premier League but that, of course, won't be known until the end of the preceding season. The only other content appears to be a list of players whose contracts extend to 2014/5 but AfDs on future Formula One seasons have come to the conclusion that such a list (in that case, of contracted races and drivers) is not sufficient (e.g., Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/2014_Formula_One_season). Dricherby (talk) 22:40, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:CRYSTAL. Uberaccount (talk) 22:55, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:28, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:28, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:28, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per CRYSTAL, the 2013–14 hasn't even started, let alone the 2014–15! GiantSnowman 08:27, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - far too far out for an article -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:03, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Definite WP:CRYSTAL. Walls of Jericho (talk) 18:06, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete – Their Premier League status and first team squad can't be verified at this point in time. The article itself fails WP:TOOSOON. Kingjeff (talk) 05:27, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Contracts count for little and to base an article on them is very flimsy. Let's see what 13-14 brings before dealing with 14-15.--Egghead06 (talk) 07:15, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete it per WP:CRYSTAL, and soon, as consensus is pretty clear here. Ducknish (talk) 00:55, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - way too soon. 2013–14 Chelsea F.C. season was nominated for deletion four months before the season started, and it was closed as no consensus. This article is about that starts in 14 months. Mentoz86 (talk) 09:39, 11 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. SarahStierch (talk) 19:48, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Lesbaret[edit]

Lesbaret (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 neologism. Google search found no hits other than Wikipedia for this word used this way,[4] and given that the article creator says that it was coined this week, I think it's fair to say this fails to demonstrate notability to Wikipedia's standards. PROD tag was removed without explanation or improvement to article, so here we are at AFD. Dawn Bard (talk) 19:38, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Failure to appear in Google search does not denote "not-notable," especially when it comes to new LGBT developments. A search for "lesbian bars in Chicago," for example, fails to turn up Parlour, which is otherwise well known by word of mouth for its currently thriving lesbian scene. The term "lesbaret" is recently coined, but a needed name for a recognized theatrical genre.

E.elisabeth.smith (talk) 19:51, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete According to the article, the term was first coined in June 2013. That would mean that it is less than one week old. When the term has had time to circulate around, and get used by more than just one person to hawk her own entertainment program, then it may become a notable neologism. For now, now so much. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 19:56, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The article was not created by the same person who coined the term or to sell any particular show....

E.elisabeth.smith (talk) 20:02, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I didn't say the article was created to sell a show. I said that the term was created to sell (or at least describe) a show. And I'll admit that I might be incorrect in that assumption -- the term may well have been invented to describe a whole genre of shows (are lesbian cabaret acts really all that different from gay cabaret acts, or straight cabaret acts?), but that is irrelevant. The matter at hand here is whether the term lesbaret has gained sufficiently wide usage to represent a notable neologism. And to that question, the answer appears to be a resounding "no". WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 20:11, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Thank you, I appreciate your thoughtful response. While I understand the concern that failure to show up on Google suggests a non-notable term, I would point out that Google cannot effectively track word-of-mouth trends, especially in communities and genres where so much is "underground." My hope is that myself and other users will be able to fill in more details and examples to make the page more robust and verifiable.

E.elisabeth.smith (talk) 20:19, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment True, Google cannot track word of mouth, but then word of mouth is not considered a reliable source. We need verifiable evidence that this word has gained currency as the term for a particular genre of entertainment, and that is currently lacking. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 20:23, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A sad day for oral histories everywhere. — Preceding unsigned comment added by E.elisabeth.smith (talk • contribs) 20:29, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not an oral history: it's an encyclopaedia. Please bear in mind that "notable" has a specific meaning on Wikipedia, which is explained in the general notability guidelines: "significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject". Without this, it's impossible to write an article that's verifiably balanced. For example, if somebody came along and said, "No! Lesbaret is cabaret produced by Lesley's Cabaret Troupe!", how would we know that your claim is stronger than theirs? Dricherby (talk) 22:50, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete No WP:RS whatsoever. DavidLeighEllis (talk) 21:26, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:24, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:24, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. There are no reliable sources to show that this is anything other than something someone came up with one day. We don't include neologisms on Wikipedia, not unless they're something that caught on so wildly and received such an extreme (and I mean EXTREME) amount of attention from just about every type of press there is. Even if the thing the word is describing has been around for a while, that doesn't change that the word itself is new. It's not up to Wikipedia to help popularize or spread a word around and I can't even see where this word is even being used that much. Searches don't bring up much by the way of usage. This just isn't notable. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 03:37, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete original research! It's a newly-minted neologism and there is no indication that it is in any way notable.  Ohc ^¡digame!_{¿que pasa?} 08:45, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above. To summarize: no WP:RS (actually, no real sources at all), WP:OR, WP:NEO. Ansh666 21:45, 7 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, as per vigorous input in the discussion that affirmed the article's value and the ability to improve it through more diligent referencing. The lack of deletion votes beyond the nominator is also noted. A non-admin closure. And Adoil Descended (talk) 00:07, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Steamboats of the Lower Fraser River and Harrison Lake[edit]

Steamboats of the Lower Fraser River and Harrison Lake (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)

Fringe trivial topic, content not referenced  █ EMARSEE 19:09, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• STRONGLY Oppose STRONG KEEP This article may not be as well-written as it should be, and whoever launched it from the former redlink on ((Steamboats British Columbia)) and/or related templates hasn't referenced it properly, but it's an important subject in BC history and the most important steamboat route in the history of early British Columbia, or all of British Columbia history. I meant to start it myself and/or improve it once it started, but my time has been taken up putting out fires like unwarranted speedies requiring exhaustive RMs and more....the names Frank Barnard and Hugh Nelson and Gassy Jack and many others are associated with this route and its vessels, as is the history of the Fraser Canyon and Cariboo Gold Rushes and other articles; too many to list here, in fact. Instead of nominating this for deletion, the nominating editor should have done some reading (readily available online) and improved the article instead of nominating it for deletion. I urge you withdraw this and give your head a shake and educate yourself and applying yourself to improving it, it's a fascinating subject and very extensive in scope and importance. More steamboats were on the Fraser River than there were on the Mississippi in this period, most notable early BC figures were associated with the history of these routes and companies and vessels, and the history of these vessels is intertwined with the Puget Sound Mosquito Fleet and the articles re Steamboats on the Columbia River (many of the same vessels and companies in fact). I have to go to bed, I'm shocked to see this nominated for deletion instead of improved. This is a central topic in the history of the Colony of British Columbia (1858-1866) and others....deleting it would be knee-jerk madness of the worst Wikipedian kind....it's late, I've just been challenged to start an AfD to get rid of two completely WP:TRIVIA/WP:UNDUE non-notable articles.....and now this. Good grief. Sorry for the spite, it's not meant that way. Point is editors who find under-referenced and poorly written articles should spend their energies improving them, not spending the energy and time of other editors who find it necessary to defend them, while other much more insignificant topics are allowed to stand simply because they have references that aren't notable...but are well-formatted. I'm going to bed....Skookum1 (talk) 19:53, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Keep. The use of steamboats throughout the BC river systems. While the article does not have any sources at present it should not be too hard to find them, given access to a good library, based on the sources in some of the other articles in this series. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 23:13, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of British Columbia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:20, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:20, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment References have been provided from articles easily linked, dozens of more available, the Steamboats BC template and other See also have been provided......the AfD should now be closed as irrelevant.Skookum1 (talk) 08:20, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - this is in no way WP:FRINGE as the nominator says, and references have been added. Pretty sure it meets WP:N, per above. Ansh666 21:44, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment User:CambridgeBayWeather and User:Skookum1, I recommend you change "oppose" to "keep" to avoid any potential confusion, since that's more standard. Just in case. Ansh666 21:44, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Changed mine. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 01:04, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ditto. Thanks. No way is this a fringe topic, not even close.Skookum1 (talk) 04:58, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep This seems an encyclopedic (and rather important) topic to me and plenty of references have been provided. Because I do not have access to the books I can't check but I have no reason to doubt that they cover the topic. I have found a book available online so I have added it to "further reading". Thincat (talk) 07:57, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Needs some work but an important topic for the history of British Columbia. I am surprised that this would be nominated for deletion.Mtsmallwood (talk) 18:53, 11 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 based on unanimous consensus and a somewhat vague call for deletion that was not shared beyond the nominator. A non-admin closure. And Adoil Descended (talk) 00:04, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Antigua State College[edit]

Antigua State College (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 institution — Bdb484 (talk) 18:08, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per longstanding consensus that secondary schools are inherently notable in the same manner as highways, landmarks, populated places, and professional athletes. This is actually a college, not a high school, so all the more so. Carrite (talk) 18:28, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Caribbean-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:33, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:34, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Didn't realize these were considered inherently notable. If you've can send me to something documenting that consensus, I'll gladly pull the AfD. — Bdb484 (talk) 17:01, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - per Carrite. It might not be a great article but that's an argument for improvement rather than deletion. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 20:18, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep As an accredited post-secondary academic institution, it is notable per se. DavidLeighEllis (talk) 21:29, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Notable and verifiable. Pburka (talk) 00:23, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Verified tertiary institution, invariably kept for reasons already much elaborated. In addition, nominator has provided no good reason for deletion. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:54, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per WP:OUTCOMES; we almost always keep such articles. Bearian (talk) 19:07, 11 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. SarahStierch (talk) 19:51, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wynn Wagner[edit]

Wynn Wagner (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 appears to consist almost entirely of self-written work (assuming User:Wynnwagner is indeed the same person, which it appears to be) and supported almost entirely by SPS sources, the majority being Wynnwagner's blog. I traced through a few of the refs that appeared to be non-SPS, but they appear to all have ether no mention of the topic, or are unavailable. Wagner is indeed the author of Opus and there are NOTEable refs for that work, but there don't appear to be any NOTEable refs for any other events in his bio, which reduces this to a defacto one-event article. As such I think a D is in order. Maury Markowitz (talk) 17:49, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is more confusing that I imagined it could have been. It appears there is a former AFD from five years ago, which refers to NOTEable references, but looking at the article from that date doesn't help matters. Maury Markowitz (talk) 17:54, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 18:04, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 18:04, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 18:04, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete No WP:RS. DavidLeighEllis (talk) 21:33, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Even Opus-CBCS is marginal, or at least needs help with sources and notability evidence. W Nowicki (talk) 16:27, 13 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. SarahStierch (talk) 19:50, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Boardwalk Hall Auditorium Organ stoplist[edit]

Boardwalk Hall Auditorium Organ stoplist (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 content is entirely too trivial and unencyclopedic. –Dream out loud (talk) 17:02, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:26, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:26, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:26, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Other than this apparently having something to do with how the Boardwalk Hall Auditorium Organ operates, I have no idea what this list is even presenting so I can't really evaluate it. Can you explain, and then be a bit more specific about why this information is trivial or encyclopedic and why or why not the summary table in the parent article is sufficient? postdlf (talk) 19:53, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • To whom is your above message directed? The author of the list article? He's not an active editor (hasn't made an edit in almost a month) so I don't expect him to even notice this AfD. –Dream out loud (talk) 20:49, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • • (NB: Even if I'm not active, a notice on my user space is surely only polite. I only found out because a template used on the page was listed for deletion. Tompw (talk) (review) 00:59, 9 June 2013 (UTC) )[reply]
    • To you, the nominator. postdlf (talk) 21:05, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I said the list is unencyclopedic. As Themfromspace noted below, it's trivial because it's merely an indiscriminate collection of information, as per WP:IINFO. I think the summary table in parent article is sufficient enough; no need to have this article as well. –Dream out loud (talk) 22:18, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:IINFO. The information presented is purely trivial. To Postdlf: This list is an enumeration of each of the sets of pipes on a very large organ. See Organ stop. ThemFromSpace 21:54, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I wish there were a use for this information that would make it worth retaining but the fantastic amount of microscopic detail here makes it hard to justify keeping this as an article or merging it elsewhere. The level of detail in the Boardwalk Hall Auditorium Organ article seems appropriate and encyclopedic. Alansohn (talk) 19:23, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Certainly this information is very technical and of interest to a limited audience, but so are many topics on Wikipedia. The list of stops is highly relevant to the article about the instrument, but in this case too large to include in the article itself, I believe. --Danmuz (talk) 19:30, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep "The fantastic amount of microscopic detail" can't seriously be a reason to delete something. If we applied that logic, then we wouldn't have any articles with details! Much of this information used to be in Boardwalk Hall Auditorium Organ (as per this old version). It got split into a separate article, because it meant some additional information could be added, and it could sensibly be presented in a sortable fashion. The article requires some work - in particular it needs a better lead so it can function as a standalone article, and generally add context for the casual reader.
  To Themfromspace: You say "This list is an enumeration of each of the sets of pipes on a very large organ". Any list is an enumeration, by definition! Your comment is like saying that List of United States Senators from Maine is an enumeration of each of the senators from a small state - it's true, but I fail to see why it's a reason for deletion. Further, this isn't just "a very large organ" - it's the largest pipe organ ever built. That makes the information non-trivial. Tompw (talk) (review) 00:59, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

First, the entire article seems to be 100% original research. I don't know where you could find reliable sources for every single one of the organ pipes. Second, the article does not seem to satisfy the requirements at MOS:LIST. The list does not fit into any categories at MOS:LIST#List articles. Third, Wikipedia is not a list of indiscriminate information and details on every single pipe in the world's largest organ simply are not notable. –Dream out loud (talk) 03:42, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, it's not original research. It lacked references, but that's a separate issue... I've added some). Secondly, that list of categories for lists doesn't cover everything allowed - hence why it says "Types of list articles include" not "Types of allowed list articles are" (emphasis mine). There are other lists that don't fit in any of these categories (e.g. Railway stations in Armenia - the links on the page are to cities, not articles on the stations, so it's not an index list). Thirdly, it doesn't detail "every single pipe". It lists key information about every *set* of pipes. Tompw (talk) (review) 19:05, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Bother... forgot to add: (1) what specific requirements at MOS:LIST do feel this article fails to satisfy; and (2) are you certain these failures cannot be fixed? (If they can be fixed, I'm sure we all agree we should fix things rather than delete the article). Tompw (talk) (review) 19:08, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I really don't think this article can be "fixed". If that were the case, I wouldn't have nominated it for an AfD. The problem is that the content itself is not notable. In List of United States Senators from Maine, each senator on the list is notable themselves and has his/her own article. Looking at this article, you can't pick out any individual organ stop from the list and write an article about it. As a whole, yes, the stops are notable, but that content should be reserved for the organ's main article. If you look at MOS:LIST#List articles, you'll see that this list does not fit in the category of any of the eight types of lists. –Dream out loud (talk) 01:43, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

So, to be clear, the only part of MOS:LIST you feel this article fails is that it doesn't fit in those categories? If so, then I would repeat that those categories are not exhaustive. Plenty of lists exist that do not fit in those categories.
Are for notability... You agree that's its notable as a whole, although the items on the list aren't (and no-one's claiming they are). So you seem to be arguing that something notable shouldn't have its own article. Tompw (talk) (review) 16:36, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

When I said "This list is an enumeration..." I was explaining to Postdlf what the list is about, as he seemed confused on the subject matter. That wasn't my argument for deletion. My argument is that encyclopedias do not list out items in this degree of detail. Just as there is no listing of every room in the Empire State Building, although the building itself is notable, we should not list every stop on a giant organ. If any particular sets of stops are notable, they can be described in the main organ's article, but the level of factual detail is too much for an encyclopedia article. ThemFromSpace 16:48, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This article is pretty notable. It doesn't seem to bother me whether if you guys decide to keep or delete it. I would not have a problem with either option. Ashbeckjonathan 02:07, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

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

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

The result was speedy delete. Sir Sputnik (talk) 21:53, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ákos Szentgyörgyi[edit]

Ákos Szentgyörgyi (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)

Recreation of an article previously deleted by PROD. Concern was Article about a footballer who fails WP:GNG and who has not played in a fully pro league. His cup appearance does not grant notability as it was not against a fully pro team. This remains valid. Sir Sputnik (talk) 16:58, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 16:58, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 17:48, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 17:48, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hungary-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 17:48, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was 'SPEEDY KEEP' Toddst1 (talk) 17:14, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Jordan Baker (umpire)[edit]

Jordan Baker (umpire) (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)

Either this article should include references for what this umpire is best known (throwing gum on baseball fields) or it should be deleted as non-notable. It's now been covered by USA Today [5], the Los Angeles Times [6], Yahoo Sports [7], CBS Sports [8], Deadspin [9], and numerous blogs. It was also discussed during a recent televised baseball game in Arizona. TexianPolitico (talk) 15:42, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep now you want to delete the article over bubble gum? AutomaticStrikeout  ?  15:49, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The minor edit war over bubble gum does not impact the notability of this article. Escalating this to an AfD discussion does not help build consensus about whether to include the gum throwing incidents in the article. Jncraton (talk) 16:01, 6 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.  — Crisco 1492 (talk) 10:36, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The HUB[edit]

The HUB (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)

Local free newspaper which ceased publishing 15 months ago. Was only published for 3 years. Page was quite COI anyway. Andrewdpcotton (talk) 15:15, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:24, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:25, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete This paper was non-notable, I can't find any sources that mention it except the ones given. ~ Anastasia (talk) 19:03, 6 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.  — Crisco 1492 (talk) 10:36, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Aadhaar; How a Nation is Deceived[edit]

Aadhaar; How a Nation is Deceived (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 notability per WP:NBOOK seen. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 14:20, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:21, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:21, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The only major contributor is User:Jijeeshpb who surely has a COI issue. Fails WP:NBOOK. Solomon7968 (talk) 21:43, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. There's just nothing out there to show that this book ultimately passes WP:NBOOK. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 03:39, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• 'Delete - No coverage in reliable sources. -- Whpq (talk) 16:24, 7 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. SarahStierch (talk) 19:57, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Mariposas (Shakira song)[edit]

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

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

Article was not released as a single and is not at all notable. It's not as if Mariposas was an exceptionally popular song from Sale El Sol. Probably a fan of the song created this page. Shakira articles are already not faring so well and unnecessary articles are not needed. WonderBoy1998 (talk) 13:42, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:16, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, no information here that can't be summed up in the parent article in a couple sentences. WikiRedactor (talk) 23:32, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Nothing notable about this non-single except a minor placing on a minor chart. Most of the content is typical derivation from album reviews. Adabow (talk) 06:56, 13 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 Article was speedy deleted by User:INeverCry so I'm closing the discussion. (Non-admin closure.) Dricherby (talk) 23:05, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Muhammad Umar Sohail[edit]

Muhammad Umar Sohail (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 scholar. No indications that this assistant professor has made any significant impact with either his teaching or his research. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 13:39, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy Delete -Not a notable researcher. Page made for self promotion. Strongly recommend for speedy deletion.Jussychoulex (talk) 13:50, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Evano1van(எவனோ ஓருவன்) 14:08, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:14, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:14, 6 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.  — Crisco 1492 (talk) 10:37, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Go Through This[edit]

Go Through This (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)

Prod contested with no reason given. This is a song by Yes: never released as a single, only released as a bonus track and in a live version on a box set. Great song, but it has no inherent notability. Tagged for 6 months; no citations given. Bondegezou (talk) 12:15, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment If this AfD decides to get rid of the article, a redirect to Drama (Yes album) might be best. Bondegezou (talk) 12:28, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:12, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Not notable enough. Koala15 (talk) 21:55, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:GNG.  Brendon is here 08:10, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: A Redirect seems ok, only if the song gets some mention/coverage in the Drama article. Otherwise, Keep. Ohwrotcod (talk) 14:16, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. A 1980-recorded song which was not notable enough to be issued on the album it was recorded for (so why is a redirect needed?).--Richhoncho (talk) 06:35, 14 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. SarahStierch (talk) 15:24, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Jairaj Phatak[edit]

Jairaj Phatak (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)

retired non notable officer.does not pass WP:Politician Uncletomwood (talk) 09:39, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Sir Rcsprinter, Bt (cackle) @ 12:36, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:48, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete , Not a notable person. Just a common civil servant. Jussychoulex (talk) 03:57, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Article needs improvement and some improvement is there after this nomination. Subject is widely discussed in Mumbai, as he was Muncipal Commissioner of the City and known for unpractical wit/reforms! Rayabhari (talk) 07:22, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The subject was involved with Adarsh Housing Society scam, a much publicised high rise building scam happend in Mumbai and thus becomes more notable.Rayabhari (talk) 16:59, 31 May 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 · · 10:28, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Seems to be notable.--Abramsky (talk) 11:32, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: agree with Rayabhari. Bondegezou (talk) 15:01, 10 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 Iranian presidential election, 2013. Policy says to delete, despite the non-policy-compliant "keep" !votes. Merge of selective material and the deletion of this title makes the most sense based on the arguments presented (✉→BWilkins←✎) 11:25, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Opinion polling for the Iranian presidential election, 2013[edit]

Opinion polling for the Iranian presidential election, 2013 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Fails GNG. The article is sourced mainly through blog type websites and has been created by a member of campaign of one of the candidates, possibly to promote his candidate. The article is entirely based on primary sources and as you see in the history of the article, this user regularly update it as online polls go on (Even you don't know Persian you can click on those links so you go directly to the polls articles). There is also some obvious WP:COATRACKing going on from supporters of various political candidates since some of these websites are close to some of the presidential candidates. Farhikht (talk) 09:58, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. Farhikht (talk) 10:05, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Sir Rcsprinter, Bt (state) @ 12:37, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:49, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dear all, I removed all of the unreferenced and research-based parts from the article in order to solve the "Nomination of the article for deletion" problem! In addition, I removed the parts that were based on some non-reliable blog-typed websites. Now all of the polls in the article have some reliable references which are mostly the News-agency websites. Please recheck the article and if you found it good, remove the "tag of deletion" from the article. Regards, Koorosh1234 (talk|contribs) 16:44, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge back with Iranian presidential election, 2013 now that the page is only two tables, I think it will fit once again. It was only split off last week. Opinion polling in Iran has always been a very tricky process to report on, given the lack of independent media and association between pollsters and parties or politicians, so I remember for the last election, there was a prose section on the problems of polling, and each of the polls had a blurb indicating both who it was from and who reported the results. That's a better patten for us to follow.-- Patrick, _oѺ^∞ 16:52, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks dear Patrick. As it is discussed in Talk:Iranian presidential election, 2013, there was some disagreement about keeping these poll tables in the main article. So it's because this new article is created for these polls. Also in the following days and as we close to the Election date, some more online polls are coming and will be added to the tables and the tables become larger. Therefore, will it be fine to still keep this new article for the polls like the work is done for French presidential election as here ? ---- Koorosh1234 (talk|contribs) 17:30, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Most of your sources are primary sources, even after clean up: 1, 2, 3:a forum, 4:suspended account, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, etc. and none of them are reliable sources.Farhikht (talk) 21:36, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The topic is notable and has the potential to be expanded.sicaspi (talk) 21:06, 31 May 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 · · 10:27, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per "WP is not news" and "...directory" This is not an encyclopedia article. It is tables of raw data from primary sources, decorated with pictures of the candidates. Please mention polling numbers in the main article on the election as secondary sources inform us of their significance. I would say the same for any election in any nation. Kitfoxxe (talk) 17:06, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - This is a raw data dump and not an article. -- Whpq (talk) 16:27, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per precedent in other articles, see this. If there are concerns regarding the quality of the sources used, that should be addressed. But the article itself has merit.--JasonMacker (talk) 00:18, 8 June

• Right, I don't think its the concept of a separate article on opinion polling for a national election that brings this to AfD, it is the sourcing. Specifically, that there isn't any at the moment, and its very debatable how many there are available from reliable sources.-- Patrick, _oѺ^∞ 19:57, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Opinion polls during election campaigns are always of questionable objectivity. These are no different, but the sheer multiplicity of sources and "results" alone indicates that there is a lively debate going on. Whether one might regard some of the sources as "close to some of the presidential candidates" can be a debatable point in itself. This is a wiki article about ongoing developments in a contested - and soon-to-be completed - presidential election, and as such can be considered useful, whether one has concerns about the objectivity of sources or not. However, a notice could usefully be kept above the article warning people not to take any one result too seriously. D Dayus (talk) 14:52, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

2013 (UTC)

• Keep Relevant and timely. Keep for the reasons outlined above. Kabirat (talk) 17:08, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep but remove material form unreliable sources. There are some polls who are cited by news agencies and media which can be added.sicaspi (talk) 21:32, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep 100% --Samək^Talk 13:28, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete There's no basis and credibility for much of these pollings. Iranian media is full of ideological institutes and news agencies that always put their perception of discernment ahead of truth. This article is in violation of RS and notiblity. -- Nojan (talk) 17:04, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete The sources are not reliable enough and also this article is not important enough. OmidPLuS (talk) 18:29, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Some of these polls have been subject of deep coverage by international reliable media such as
• al-monitor (http://www.al-monitor.com/pulse/originals/2013/06/iran-elections-hassan-rouhani-surprise.html),
• Washington Post (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/worldviews/wp/2013/06/10/a-rare-iran-presidential-poll-shows-tehran-mayor-ghalibaf-as-runaway-favorite/),

and independent Non-governmental Farsi media such as

• BBC Persian (http://www.bbc.co.uk/persian/iran/2013/06/130605_l10_am_polls.shtml),
• Rooz online (http://www.roozonline.com/persian/news/newsitem/article/-234cba8cdf.html).

Seeing this coverage there is no reason for deleting this page. Does keeping this page mean that its content are verified by wikipedia or they are perfect and flawless? Not at all. We should write whatever we have about them and leave judgement to the reader. So per Wikipedia:Verifiability, not truth we should keep this. sicaspi (talk) 20:42, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Both of these Persian sources, one from Roozonline ([10]), and the other from BBC Persian ([11]), affirms that these polls are not reliable and some of them are associated with candidates as I claimed on the talk page of the article.Farhikht (talk) 22:25, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion of the sourcing specifics should probably be kept to the article's talk page, but Farhikht, the language of a source doesn't make it not a reliable source. As I see it, those are the four sources we can use, but we should, for example, qualify their inclusion with a note about who runs Roozonline. I'm still in favor of merging this. Instead of having this separate article, which so far has been a breading ground for unsourced information, we should have a much shortened table on the Iranian presidential election, 2013 article.-- Patrick, _oѺ^∞ 23:04, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Patrick, I just wanted to translate the content of those articles for non-Persian speakers as I do usually. There is no problem with non-English sources.Farhikht (talk) 09:14, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I did not ever claim that the pollings are reliable! I say whatever they are and even if their quality is not ideal, thay have been subject of multiple deep reliable sources. If they are not reliable enough, they do not have enough weight to be mentioned in the main article. --sicaspi (talk) 14:33, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge I guess by having many disagreements about keeping this article, by now Patrick suggestion seems the best solution. As it is seen in the last Iranian presidential election on 2009 the polls are also included in the main article with a nice way and by having two separate tables. In the following 1-2 days, I try to manage the current polls in the article and find some reliable sources for some of them and remove the non-referenced and the online ones without any third party sources. Then it is possible to move the final tables to the main article. I hope this way will be fine for all. Koorosh1234 (talk|contribs) 13:17, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Sounds good, I definitely think the 2009 article provides a reasonable template.-- Patrick, _oѺ^∞ 16:46, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep notable in the context of Iranian elections, remove unsourced material. Farmanesh (talk) 16:18, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Again I think notability in context is not a problem, its a question of whether we want an article that consists of a table with 5-6 rows, or if perhaps that table would be better in the context of a larger article on the election.-- Patrick, _oѺ^∞ 16:46, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep we should just remove excessive explanation and also broke links.Soroush90gh (talk) 07:52, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Again I think that's missing the crux of the discussion here. Broken links are a problem, but its a question of whether we need a separate article to present these tables. Particularly when we already have a section on this subject on the main article, where IPOS polls are presented in the prose. One further concern I have is that Wikipedia articles on opinion polling die the day of the election. Just look at the chart for the article on polling for the most recent U.S. election, which had thousands of reliable polls. What I'm saying is there isn't much future for this article past June 22.-- Patrick, _oѺ^∞ 20:07, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I've now had to fully protect this article for edit waring. I've no comment on the AfD but the article needs stability. If it's decided to be kept, I'd suggest the closing admin re-evaluates the protection. GedUK  11:37, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge back to Iranian presidential election, 2013 per Patrick and 2009 precedent - if after cleanup WP:SIZE permits (looks to me like it would, although if substantial new content is added to either it may become a problem). Otherwise, keep. Ansh666 22:57, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. If unreliable sources are the problem, then remove them.VR _talk 05:15, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge into Iranian presidential election, 2013 per Patrick,Koorosh1234 and Ansh. While this topic may loom large in some editor's perspectives, it is just part of the election, and deserves brief mention in that article, and just as a summary not as tables. --Bejnar (talk) 18:11, 15 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.  — Crisco 1492 (talk) 10:39, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Republican Party (United Kingdom)[edit]

Republican Party (United Kingdom) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Lacks notability. Organisation apparently has no presence outside of its official website. Fails WP:ORG Eighteither (talk) 09:27, 6 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 6. Snotbot  t • c »  10:21, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Hard to find sources here since most plausible search terms return pages about British comment on the US Republican Party and so on. Even searching for the party's full name ("Democratic Republican Party") is filled with hits for the former US party of that name. However, the party's website says their leader is Peter Kellow and searching for '"Peter Kellow" republican' gives zero gnews hits. Further, the top news item on the party's own website is dated September 2012, which gives the impression that the party is too small to have somebody update the website on a regular basis. I'm British and read quite a lot of current affairs and I've never heard of these people; they're also not mentioned at Republicanism in the United Kingdom. Of the above, I find the total lack of mention of Peter Kellow to be the most telling and conclude that, difficulties from being swamped by the GOP aside, that this organization doesn't meet WP:GNG. Dricherby (talk) 12:04, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Agree with Dricherby. Bondegezou (talk) 12:20, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - The party does exist and is registered with the Electoral Commission (reference number PP 1860), along with some registered emblems and descriptions, but I'm otherwise finding absolutely nothing about these guys and AFAICT, they did not field candidates in the recent election. There doesn't seem to be anything indicating notability. Grandmartin11 (talk) 15:35, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • That link doesn't work (it requires session data) but the reference number given is correct. Details can be found through the search interface at [12]. Dricherby (talk) 15:54, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Your link doesn't work either. Looks like you need to go to the main search page [13], then hit registration search to get at the search form we're talking about. Grandmartin11 (talk) 16:42, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • So, basically, you posted a link and I said, "That doesn't work. Try exactly the same link." Doh! Dricherby (talk) 16:52, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:01, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:01, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:01, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Redirected as per below. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 18:09, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Slow Down (Selena Gomez song)[edit]

Slow Down (Selena Gomez song) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Uncharted song with no known successes anywhere . No references supplied. Fails song notability criteria. Even if it were to have success it is certainly too soon to have an article. Looks more like advertising  Velella  ^{Velella Talk}   09:25, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Stars Dance, the article on the album. This song article is pure speculation. --82.71.226.217 (talk) 09:54, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Withdrawn- now reverted back to a redirect as per comment above and previous decision by Kww in article edit summary.  Velella  ^{Velella Talk}   13:37, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy delete. Speedy delete via G11: Unambiguous advertising or promotion Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 07:50, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Discovery Gardens[edit]

Discovery Gardens (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 looks like advertising, and its notability is not stated in the article. -- ^(T) Numbermaniac _(C) 07:21, 6 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.  — Crisco 1492 (talk) 10:39, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

IGoDigital[edit]

IGoDigital (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)

Lacks any notability and RS, looks like an advertisment. Tyros1972 Talk 06:50, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete A firm with 20 employees [14] acquired by another firm (ExactTarget), in turn acquired by another (Salesforce.com). Any coverage I can find relates to them being fast-growing in revenue and then to their acquisition, but not evidence of the firm having been notable in itself. AllyD (talk) 07:15, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Evano1van(எவனோ ஓருவன்) 14:10, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Evano1van(எவனோ ஓருவன்) 14:10, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Indiana-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:08, 6 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 per the unanimous consensus in this discussion. I would also note Dricherby's comment that the AfD section is not the appropriate place to debate this topic. A non-admin closure. And Adoil Descended (talk) 00:11, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Bubbler[edit]

Bubbler (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)

Confused mismatch of an article between the term "bubbler" (synonym of drinking fountain) and the fountain itself. Wholly unreferenced to boot. Deadbeef 06:46, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• This is not an issue for AfD. The article needs to be cleaned up and placed at "Drinking fountain", with a redirect from "Bubbler" (a dialect and trademark term) and a "main article:" link at Fountain#Drinking_fountain. Dricherby (talk) 09:42, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Seems fine and has several links supporting the topic. Here's another one: Explorer's Guide Wisconsin. Warden (talk) 09:44, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Move to Drinking fountain which is the more common name for the generic article. Much of the article is not specifically about the branded product: it would be ok to have an article specifically on the branded product at this name, if there were better references, but a generic article about drinking fountains belongs at drinking fountain. --82.71.226.217 (talk) 10:00, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep A lot of people in Eastern New England and Wisconsin use this term instead of "Drinking Fountain" - see question # 103 http://spark-1590165977.us-west-2.elb.amazonaws.com/jkatz/SurveyMaps ^[1]
• Keep and Merge It's a notable topic (speaking as a Wisconsinite). I think the section Fountain#Drinking fountain should be moved to Bubbler and then rename the article to Drinking fountain. Of course, sources are needed as well. Howicus (talk) 14:44, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and the stuff about the brand name could go to Kohler Company, assuming that the article is correct. Howicus (talk) 14:45, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• What Howicus said - While there is some suitable information here once references are added, "bubbler" is just a Wisconsin term for drinking fountain. öBrambleberry of RiverClan 15:46, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:07, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:07, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep and rename drinking fountain. This is currently a subsection of fountain — fountains and drinking fountains are completely different animals, different in form and function and each with their own history. Carrite (talk) 18:31, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I entirely agree with Howicus. Well said. Capitalismojo (talk) 19:12, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Move to Drinking fountain and take care of merging, clean-up, and the like outside of AfD. This is starting to look like a WP:SNOW keep. Cnilep (talk) 03:19, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I agree with Howicus. Thank you-RFD (talk) 13:11, 9 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 page was speedy deleted (CSD A7: no indication of importance or significance). (Non-admin closure as discussion was left open.) Dricherby (talk) 23:14, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Limor Beker[edit]

Limor Beker (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 enough reliable sources, just seems like an resume for this person. Tyros1972 Talk 06:46, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete as a non-notable person. Deadbeef 06:57, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete no notability. -- ^(T) Numbermaniac _(C) 07:26, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:05, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:05, 6 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 Rahul Mahajan (TV personality). Redirect after merge.  — Crisco 1492 (talk) 10:40, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dimpy Mahajan[edit]

Dimpy Mahajan (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)

She is not a notable person. Her notability can not be accepted on the basis of her Husband. In sources, only wedding related references are provided. Not a single references shows her notability Jussychoulex (talk) 06:37, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Evano1van(எவனோ ஓருவன்) 14:10, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Evano1van(எவனோ ஓருவன்) 14:10, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:04, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:04, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge and redirect to Rahul Mahajan (TV personality). They share notability for much the same reasons. Mabalu (talk) 19:42, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. She is a notable person on her own merit. I would maintain separate article on her.GhanaDa (talk) 17:24, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge and redirect per Mabalu. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 04:20, 10 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.  — Crisco 1492 (talk) 10:40, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Eric Tobias[edit]

Eric Tobias (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 lacks additional RS and may not be notable, also seems to just be written to promote this person. Tyros1972 Talk 06:37, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Not notable. A Google news search throws up a few passing references with no real biographical information, while a regular Google search gives self-authored stuff, so I don't think he's notable apart from his companies. --82.71.226.217 (talk) 10:04, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 11:28, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 11:28, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete The article appears to be a resume of a non-notable person. Could be merged into iGoDigital, but that is being considered for deletion to. ~ Anastasia (talk) 18:59, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - badly fails WP:BLP and WP:GNG. There is not significant coverage in even one reliable source; the sources are self-published, or in the case of Inc., in passing and npt about him but the company. Badly written advert/resume. Bearian (talk) 19:02, 11 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.  — Crisco 1492 (talk) 10:41, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

DNA Digital Man[edit]

DNA Digital 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)

Non-notable character from non-notable book. Author removed prod. Deadbeef 04:06, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. There isn't a single source out there to show how this character (or the book, for that matter) is notable enough to warrant an article at this point in time. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:25, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 10:56, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 10:56, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. As above. Bondegezou (talk) 12:24, 6 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.  — Crisco 1492 (talk) 10:41, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Rainchildren[edit]

Rainchildren (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)

Doesn't meet notability guideline per WP:MUSIC Killian441 (talk) 16:25, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Evano1van(எவனோ ஓருவன்) 18:24, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Evano1van(எவனோ ஓருவன்) 18:24, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Some local coverage (like this), but not much else outside of routine listings of their events. Recommending to delete per lack of significant coverage and failure to meet the notability guidelines for bands. I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 18:55, 22 May 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, J04n(talk page) 01:56, 30 May 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 · · 03:47, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Looks to me as though this fails WP:GNG. Having a "local" fan base isn't usually a good sign; at the bare minimum, regional coverage is really what's needed to establish notability. Red Phoenix ^{build the future...}_{remember the past...} 03:53, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per above. Bondegezou (talk) 14:53, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Non notable, should be deleted. Koala15 (talk) 00:31, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. No love for a delete outcome in this process. Discussion concludes this subject meets notability guidelines. (non-admin closure) BusterD (talk) 15:33, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Christy Lee Rogers[edit]

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

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

A few minor articles in scattered blogs & magazines - doesn't look like notability can be established yet per WP guidelines. Looks like a potential vanity article in the making & we've been seeing a lot of these popping up lately. Based on info that's already out there, not even enough material for a legitimate article - article will end up being a permanent stub since the subject's own website is the source for 99% of the material on the Web. Should be deleted & if the subject becomes notable with plenty of neutral sources, address it again then. Laval (talk) 03:22, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. czar · · 04:03, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. czar · · 04:04, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. czar · · 04:04, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hawaii-related deletion discussions. czar · · 04:04, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Snow keep. The two-sentence article cites three highly reliable sources: a substantial article in a local magazine, a five-paragraph article in a British national newspaper and a substantial article in an American photography magazine that was founded in the 1970s. These are not "minor articles", as the nomination claims: all three are substantial articles, exclusively about Rogers and her work. The "scattered" sources are indicative of global coverage and contain enough material to support an article of several paragraphs beyond the current stub. Dricherby (talk) 10:00, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep. Article clearly needs work, but those 3 citations appear just about good enough under WP:GNG. Bondegezou (talk) 12:23, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as per the above. Yeah, it's a stub, but we have lots of those. The fact that it is backed by what appears to be pretty good coverage in reliable sources? That's what decides this one. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 13:49, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as per the above. I will also note that there have been multiple exhibitions of her work in at least three countries -- the UK, France, and the United States -- which suggests that an article about her can be more than a "vanity article". Unsigned comment by Mary Mark Ockerbloom (talk), 01:25, 7 June 2013‎.
  • And the article doesn't even link her website, which is a total fail it it was an attempted vanity article... Dricherby (talk) 00:41, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep As the article's original author, am I allowed to say "Keep"? Anyway, I only added a few references in the original stub because I didn't want to overdo it right from the outset. This artist has had a wide range of global media coverage: http://www.christyrogers.com/press/2013.html Here are some more high quality references:
  • BBC Brazil: http://www.bbc.co.uk/portuguese/noticias/2012/09/120920_galeria_arte_agua.shtml
  • Peta Pixel Magazine: http://petapixel.com/2012/09/14/underwater-photos-that-mimic-the-look-of-baroque-paintings/
  • Information (Denmark): http://www.information.dk/fotobloggen/321508
  • Articles not online have also appeared in Casa Vogue (Brazil), Harper's Bazaar Art, Monaco Matin
  • There is also an SBT (Brazil) TV report on her: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vlNtswnYidM

Setomorp (talk) 18:37, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• • Anyone, including the page creator is allowed to say "keep" as long as they give a good reason, since AfD is decided by the arguments presented, not by counting "votes". And I'd say that the extra sources are a good reason: they give even more evidence of notability. Dricherby (talk) 19:17, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your info and comments Dricherby. Here are a few more links for good measure:

• • http://www.slate.com/blogs/behold/2013/06/04/christy_lee_rogers_creating_original_baroque_style_underwater_imagery_photos.html?fb_ref=sm_fb_share_toolbar
  • http://honolulumuseum.org/art/exhibitions/11639-christy_lee_rogers_underwater_odyssey
  • http://resourcemagonline.com/2013/04/christy-lee-rogers-at-snap-orlando/
  • http://www.angers-nantes-opera.com/

Setomorp (talk) 07:41, 15 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.  — Crisco 1492 (talk) 10:42, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Titan Fighting Championships 16[edit]

Titan Fighting Championships 16 (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 Mixed Martial Arts Event. Prod was contested. I am also nominating the following articles as they're also similar events from the same company. Prod was contested on each except the first three (which are redirects) LionMans Account (talk) 02:33, 6 June 2013 (UTC):[reply]

Titan FC 16: Sylvia vs. Wagner (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Titan FC 17: Lashley vs. Ott (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Titan FC 18: Pulver vs. Davidson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Titan Fighting Championships 24 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Titan Fighting Championships 23 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Titan Fighting Championships 22 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Titan Fighting Championships 21 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Titan Fighting Championships 20 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Titan Fighting Championships 19 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Titan Fighting Championships 18 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Titan Fighting Championships 17 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. czar · · 04:03, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. czar · · 04:03, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Evano1van(எவனோ ஓருவன்) 04:03, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete All These are events put on by a local MMA organization. The organization's notability is questionable, but it's clear these individual events do not meet WP:SPORTSEVENT. Jakejr (talk) 03:22, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete All - Not a top-tier promotion and none of the articles have the sourcing to pass WP:GNG. Luchuslu (talk) 19:53, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all - Fail WP:SPORTSEVENT. LlamaAl (talk) 22:45, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete All - Not notable enough to meet WP:SPORTSEVENT requirements. El3ctr1csheepz (talk) 04:33, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep; nomination has been withdrawn and there are no outstanding delete !votes. Non-admin closure. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 19:42, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yves Chaudron[edit]

Yves Chaudron (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)

Unsourced article with possibly no notability TheOriginalSoni (talk) 01:08, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:41, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:41, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:41, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:41, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]