< 15 March	17 March >

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 Van Canto. J04n(talk page) 17:41, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hero (van Canto album)[edit]

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

Non-notable album: the only reference [1] is to a blog, which is a not a reliable source. As such it fails WP:NALBUMS, which basically just applies WP:GNG. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:10, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:16, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:08, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect To Van Canto. Not really a plausible redirect, but based solely on article history. Fails WP:NALBUMS. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 21:08, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (or redirect to van Canto at a minimum) - Merging too many album articles losslessly (track listings and personnel included) into the ensemble article would be messy. The number of albums with full track listings and album info to be merged into a musical ensemble or artist page was discussed here. Are we going to now start a mass deletion campaign of all non-notable albums? --Jax 0677 (talk) 16:47, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- When a topic is not notable, we don't need to aim for a lossless merge; we can summarise. If the topic is not notable, it does not require that much detail, and should not be covered in that much detail.
  In any case, I note that Jax0677 does not make any claim that the topic is notable, let alone evidence that it is notable. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:10, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Reply - Here it says "Users have expressed interest in keeping the tracklists somewhere in Wikipedia". Implied in this is keeping the information about the album, which is what an encyclopedia should do. --Jax 0677 (talk) 22:48, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Reply. Jax, was that a sneaky attempt at misrepresenting the result of the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Notability (music)#Merging_of_non-notable_albums, or did you just not bother to read the closing statement?
Whichever it it was, Jax has quoted from the closing admin's summary of the discussion rather than from the conclusion, which rejected any blanket approval of that point: "that consensus is to Keep current wording and merge or redirect album articles that only contain an infobox and a tracklist. Given the comments above, such merges should be done in compliance with current policies and guidelines, and when such information is considered notable (or encyclopedic) enough to be included". --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:29, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Reply - Do I recall you saying "If an article would be overwhelmed by listing all the tracks on non-notable albums, the solution is simple: don't list all the tracks"? My point is that neither the track listings nor the pertinent details should not go away, even if the album articles do get merged into the ensemble article. IMHO, if the artist is notable, the song names, times and participants in their albums can be listed somewhere on Wikipedia. --Jax 0677 (talk) 23:37, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Jax, notability is not a matter of opinion; it is a matter of substantial coverage in reliable sources. You have provided no evidence that such coverage exists.
You say that details "should not go away"; what you mean is that you don't want them to go away. The policy remains that it will be included "when such information is considered notable (or encyclopedic) enough to be included". --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:53, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Reply WP is WP:NOTCENSORED, therefore the track listings should not be excluded from an artist or ensemble page so long as the artist is considered notable. The track listings and the album titles are information about the artist. Perhaps an AfD should be filed against van Canto? --Jax 0677 (talk) 00:02, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Stop being silly. There is no question of censorship, just of editorial commonsense. If the material overwhelms an article, some of it may be omitted; but the fact that some editors want to include material which overloads an article is no grounds for creating another article on a non-notable topic. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:38, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Reply - If the article has room, include the track listing in the article. If not, do a size split. The reason that Central Station (Phoenix) has its own article is because the Metro Light Rail (Phoenix) article would otherwise be too large. This is why WP:NALBUMS says "space permitting". --Jax 0677 (talk) 02:57, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Reply. Jax, plaese take a few seconds to read a guideline before citing it. WP:NALBUMS explicitly says "An album requires its own notability, and that notability is not inherited and requires independent evidence". That's how we determined whether an article on an album should exist; the sentence you quoted relates solely to the question of whether the content of a non-notable album is merged or deleted. Lack of space in another article is no grounds for keeping an article on a non-notable topic. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:58, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Reply - Then we merge the album losslessly. --Jax 0677 (talk) 01:00, 11 March 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, Keeper | 76 23:42, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Van Canto. None of the band's album articles seem to have enough content to make separate articles necessary, and merging them all to the band article would make sense. The personnel is basically the same across the albums - any members coming or going could be mentioned in the prose, and I wouldn't see the track lengths as essential information to merge.--Michig (talk) 07:05, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Reply - Like No Justice, the albums absolutely should be merged losslessly, track lengths included. --Jax 0677 (talk) 22:08, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
merge with Van Canto. Frietjes (talk) 15:23, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with and redirect to Van Canto. Revolution1221 (talk) 16:22, 23 March 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 deleted by User:Jimfbleak --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 15:49, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Great Cyprus Expropriation[edit]

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

While this is a true event, it has not yet been given a name. A Google search returns no hits whatsoever. That is enough for a rename, but is probably more appropriate for a merge (-> Economy of Cyprus). Even so, this info is totally unrefd and seems to predict the future, as a run on banks cannot really happen until they open. There may have been a run to empty cash machines, but that is supposed to happen and they can be easily re-filled. There were some co-operative banks (open on Sat) that had to shut, but numbers are not available (approx 1/5th total banks) and they are not the norm. Chaosdruid (talk) 21:53, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Either Redirect to 2012–2013 Cypriot financial crisis#EC/ECB/IMF deal or Delete as a POV title. —teb728 t c 22:37, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cyprus-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:56, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:56, 17 March 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) 17:44, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Jody Eldred[edit]

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

Notable and an article could be written, but this is obvious a promotional bio that is almost certainly a copyvio, though I cannot find the source, and I think it would be necessary to start over DGG ( talk ) 21:38, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A lengthy, unreferenced promotional autobiography of a marginally notable cameraman and producer. No objection to recreation as a brief neutral biography. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 22:15, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Speedy Delete. It's fully promotional and serves no objective purpose. Ducknish (talk) 02:52, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment In acknowledging WP:NRVE, the subject appears notable per WP:GNG.[2][3] I agree with DGG that it may be best to simply start over from scratch. But rather than COI, my own sense from the depth of background information included, is that that article author User:Ejody might be the DGA Award-nominated Jody Eldred writing about himself. An important note here is that there definitely are sources available from which a suitable article might be created. If this thing is suitably edited/improved/sourced before this AFD concludes, I would be happy voting for a keep. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 09:36, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - The material is likely an assemblage of press release material. See this web page (dated Oct 19, 2012 by google) which contains verbatim some of the same material in the version of the article nominated. -- Whpq (talk) 22:13, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Quite likely press releases written by Jody, about Jody and containing the type of fluffy information that press release almost always contain .... and one of the reasons I think the article in its present state should go and perhaps be replaced later by a neutral and properly sourced article written by an experienced Wikipedia editor. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 00:54, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy deleted by User:Jimfbleak, CSD G11: Unambiguous advertising or promotion: unsourced biography of a living person, wrong article title. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 15:44, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sandra H. Dempsey, MSS, MLSP[edit]

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

Promotional bio with no secondary sources; seems an obvious copy from somewhere, but I cannot find the source DGG ( talk ) 21:30, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:12, 17 March 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. Keeper | 76 15:00, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Jesse Moreng[edit]

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

Subject fails WP:NMMA with only one top tier fight. Papaursa (talk) 21:29, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Papaursa (talk) 21:29, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:10, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:10, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NMMA Ducknish (talk) 02:53, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NMMA. IronKnuckle (talk) 12:34, 20 March 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. Keeper | 76 15:01, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Chris David[edit]

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

Subject fails WP:NMMA with no top tier fights. The article has no sources except for a link to his fight record. Papaursa (talk) 21:23, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Papaursa (talk) 21:23, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. No top tier fights and no outside importance means no notability. Ducknish (talk) 22:09, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:09, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:NMMA. IronKnuckle (talk) 12:30, 20 March 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. Keeper | 76 15:07, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

May Club[edit]

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

Non-notable video game. Article has existed since 2004 without establishing notability. Atlantima (talk) 21:14, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) Atlantima (talk) 21:24, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Atlantima (talk) 21:24, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:GNG in the total absence of third-party sourcing or in-depth coverage. --DAJF (talk) 05:40, 20 March 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. Keeper | 76 15:01, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Evan Cutts[edit]

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

Non-notable MMA fighter who has only 4 fights, none with a top tier organization. In addition, the article's only source is a link to his fight record. He fails WP:NMMA and WP:GNG. Papaursa (talk) 21:14, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Papaursa (talk) 21:14, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:04, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:05, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:NMMA. IronKnuckle (talk) 12:31, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NMMA and WP:GNG. Mdtemp (talk) 22:29, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per above Uberaccount (talk) 01:47, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedily deleted under CSD G4 by User:INeverCry. (non-admin closure) Command and Conquer Expert! ^{speak to me...}_{review me...} 22:12, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sheep Tag[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

It's a game mod. Therefore, it's very hard for it to be notable - and with precisely 0 references in the article, and no WP:RS coverage to satisfy WP:GNG on the web, this needs deleting. Lukeno94 (talk) 20:40, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - and I hadn't even realized this has been deleted 3 times before... wow. I suggest the name is SALTed, and other Warcraft 3 variants of the name as well. Lukeno94 (talk) 20:43, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep this game was even more popular than DOTA at one point Misterrobot (talk) 20:52, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as repost of deleted article. . . Mean as custard (talk) 21:02, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete repeatedly created deleted article. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 21:26, 16 March 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. Although reviews have been provided their validity for establishing notability has been sufficiently refuted. J04n(talk page) 17:51, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Money Masters[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Non-noteworthy documentary film. No relevant articles about the film, the WorldNetDaily piece being a paid advertisement. Thargor Orlando (talk) 01:10, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There are abundant sources to substantiate the existence of this film, but not one of them is reliable, and, in the absence of appropriate, third-party sources giving significant coverage, verifiability is unlikely. dci | TALK 01:22, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:24, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This article is definitely a keeper. The movie is among the few that go deeply into the history of central banking as well as the Rothschild dynasty. The film has been around for a long time on the internet and continues to be watched by the millions on a multitude of video sites. The follow-up movie The Secret of Oz also won an award at the Beloit International Film Festival. There are reviews available online, including on Amazon and IMDB, it is mentioned on articles for example here and here and searches on sites such as Google, Google Videos and YouTube yield millions of results. Of course the information provided within the movie is controversial since many poweful interests wish to conceal many aspects of it. Anyone who thinks the basic gist of it is bullshit should read the many other resources, movies and books on these same subjects, much of the information is revealed even within the official Rothschild History and Biography. Loewenherts (talk) 21:02, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No one is expressing any disagreement with the video's content, just a concern that there haven't been third-party, objective sources that cover it in significant detail. dci | TALK 23:24, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You can tell how biased this website is 'non-noteworthy', why even add that piece because you didn't think it was noteworthy? I swear this site is useless. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.129.240.135 (talk) 19:49, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Do not delete this article. The Money Masters is an incredibly important documentary. I can't believe the page is even being considered for deletion! Why??? It's relevance has not diminished over time and will not diminish. Deleting this page will diminish the relevance of Wiki. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.205.68.34 (talk) 20:09, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. For the same reasons as dcl. 3M (talk) 23:37, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Relevant [http://scholar.google.com/scholar?cites=7761642686530075971&as_sdt=20005&sciodt=0,9&hl=en Google Scholar) hits, [https://www.google.com/search?q=%22the+money+masters%22+AND+%28Carmack+OR+Still+OR+movie+OR+film+OR+documentary+OR+video%29&hl=en&safe=active&gl=us&authuser=0&gbv=2&biw=1600&bih=831&sa=X&ei=qgY9Uaj_OonA0QG7l4DYBw&ved=0CCEQpwUoBg&source=lnt&tbs=cdr%3A1%2Ccd_min%3A1%2F1%2F1995%2Ccd_max%3A1%2F1%2F2014&tbm=nws Google News) (filtered because 'the money masters' is commonly used in other contexts). --Gwern (contribs) 22:20 10 March 2013 (GMT)

Keep per significant coverage. NickCochrane (talk) 03:13, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
What significant coverage do you see? If it's out there, we need to add it to the article. Thargor Orlando (talk) 11:55, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Claiming this film being non-noteworthy is silly at best. This film is highly controversial, but non-noteworthy it’s not. This film has been influential in the quest for the truth about the financial system and helped many to open up for new ideas. This article is about the film itself not the quality of it. If Wikipedia would be filtering articles based on the content of the product/item/issue, then this site would be a single welcome page at best, as most things can be debated on. Deleting this article based on somebodies idea of the items noteworthiness renders Wikipedia useless as only “correct” views can be expressed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Paddinghouse (talk • contribs) 09:07, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The film is certainly noteworthy. I'm not sure exactly what kind of coverage advocates of deletion are looking for. To suggest that reliable sources need to be produced to confirm the very existence of a film that anyone can see exists is taking Wikipedia policies to a ridiculous extreme. - Lisa (talk - contribs) 14:49, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Just because a significant number of WP contributors have seen it and have been impacted it does not mean that notability is conferred onto the subject. Articles about such topics really need objective sources, and there is a dearth of them. dci | TALK 00:30, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Wikipedia is no place for the personal opinions of Wikipedia editors, therefore the "noteworthiness" or "notability" of a film alone should not be the basis for this article's deletion. This Wikipedia article is first and foremost an article about the documentary itself, rather than the validity or substance of its plot or subject. Since this film undeniably exists, the article should not be deleted on the basis of its supposed non-existence or disdain of its content. It's not necessary to agree with the content of the documentary, but deleting the article denies the fact of the documentary's existence as well as its reception from critics. Furthermore, the reception section of the article contains sourced comments from well-known individuals such as Nomi Prins and G. Edward Griffin, providing an argument that the film is indeed "noteworthy." Instead of being deleted, this article should be expanded and strengthened with more sources on its production and reception to balance the current focus on its content. Sashaarrabi91 (talk) 10:49, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached. < br/>

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, DGG ( talk ) 20:11, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I closed this a Keep, on the basis of a consensus being reached; my close was objected to on the basis that the sources for notability were not adequately reliable. The challenge may possibly have been correct, and I my practice in cases of a good faith challenge of this nature is to revert my close and relist for further discussion. I suggest a discussion of the individual sources, along with a search for others. DGG ( talk ) 20:16, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments pertaining to the above discussion:
- The documentary is not notable. Simply put, it has not received significant coverage in reliable, objective, third-party sources.
  - The current sources in the article are less than adequate. Several of them are affiliated with the subject, while others are simply links to places where the documentary can be watched online.
  - The PBS source is an expired video, and does not establish the subject's notability, but the opinion of someone who reviewed the documentary.
  - The Cineaste source and other reviews are only applicable to the section regarding critical reception.
  - Other sources are closely affiliated with the group responsible for the film.
- Many of the keep !voters above have not edited outside of this topic and, more specifically, outside of this discussion.
- Further, many of those !voting keep seem to assume that deletion arguments are attacking the documentary. They are not. They are stating that the subject lacks sufficient coverage in objective, reliable sources.

Thanks for your patience in reading this belaboring commentary. dci | TALK 21:47, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The article is poorly sourced and I don't think there's a single cite there worth hanging an entire article on. Nothing turns up in a quick Lexis/Nexis search. Google Books turns up a few books which cite the video, but I'm not convinced that's enough to hang an article on either. Gamaliel (talk) 22:04, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I agree that notability is insufficiently proven to maintain the article. WP:FRINGE- it's not an issue of disagreeing with the content of the documentary, it's an issue of significant coverage in secondary sources, and I don't think the film meets that burden. Several of the editors supporting keeping the article (including those, as DCI said, seem to be clearly SPA/ips specifically targeting this discussion) argue that mere existence of the film justifies inclusion. Existence does not confer notability. And it is also clear that several of these supporting editors do not exactly have a NPOV on the subject. The admin who closes this discussion ought to take a good look into the sources actually cited in the article. Biased, fringe coverage shouldn't be held up to prove notability. Ducknish (talk) 22:21, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - mostly because existence ≠ notability. Yep, it exists, no doubt about it. But that does not mean it is notable. For that, we need multiple reliable sources that discuss, review, debate, etc, the subject itself. Sites that simply allow the film to be downloaded or viewed cannot be considered significant coverage of the subject itself. Just like a book being on a shelf in a library or a horse being on a stock-list at a stables or a product being on a shipping manifest. None of those things confer notability. That some editors here have seen the film and either like it or not is also not an inclusion criteria. Show me a couple of decent reviews or responses and it'll be a different story. Otherwise, delete. Stalwart111 00:10, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and the meat-puppetry here has been spectacular. I mean, silly and pathetic, but spectacular. Stalwart111 00:10, 17 March 2013 (UTC) [reply]

Keep - Quoting the author directly above: "Show me a couple of decent reviews or responses and it'll be a different story.": Here's a decent review, http://www.skeptically.org/bhe/id3.html ; and there are lots of interesting responses here: http://www.amazon.com/Masters-International-Bankers-Control-America/dp/B0018IPKCG Christopherbalz (talk) 00:09, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, sorry, but neither of those could really be considered a reliable source (see WP:RS). One is an amazon.com listing with some viewer comments and the other looks like someone's personal website where attribution, author, date, expertise, etc remain unclear. At best, it would be considered self-published (like a blog), but I'm sure we could even confirm that from the site itself. That's a long way from the "couple of decent reviews" I was looking for. Stalwart111 03:48, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oh and sorry, again, but you have to see the irony in me quoting WP:MEAT only to have a user that hasn't been active since 2009 (and never in WP: space) show up to respond. Stalwart111 03:48, 18 March 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. Keeper | 76 15:06, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Kevin Perez[edit]

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

fails WP:NACTOR as an actor and the more general WP:ANYBIO. as a climber fails WP:SPORTCRIT. has not been a significant subject of reliable third-party sources; does not satisfy WP:GNG. Nathan Johnson (talk) 19:30, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:ACTOR and WP:GNG. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 21:07, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Acting roles seem minor and there's no good outside sources backing him up. Ducknish (talk) 22:30, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the above - roles to date do not satisfy WP:ENT, subject does not meet WP:SPORTCRIT as a professional climber or WP:GNG in general. Gong show 00:47, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:03, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:03, 17 March 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 - speedy-deleted (G10) by admin Orangemike (non-admin close) Stalwart111 00:12, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Christopher J. Dumler Rape Scandal[edit]

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

Exquisitely sourced article about a rape case involving the "Scottsville District representative to the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors". In case someone is wondering, that's in Virginia. WP:NOT#NEWS applies quite nicely here, as does WP:BLP1E, not to mention this would merit nothing more than a paragraph in the bio of the person involved, were that bio to actually exist. It doesn't, which is another indication this doesn't belong on Wikipedia at all. This isn't even a national news story, which is the argument used routinely to keep articles about shootings or accidents. It's a coatrack and the largest case of WP:UNDUE I've seen. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 19:21, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, a ridiculous WP:COATRACK and seriously lacking in notability in any meaningful sense. Note also the previous AfD on the individual. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 19:29, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, A nasty, vindictive piece of work, which brings shame on the whole of Wikipedia. I can see nothing worthwhile in the whole page. Kiltpin (talk) 19:44, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Of doubtful notability to me when I reviewed this new article, so I am pleased to see this AfD. --DThomsen8 (talk) 20:14, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I have tagged this as an attack page. I'm not perfectly familiar with this area of policy at the moment, otherwise I'd delete it immediately myself. Espresso Addict (talk) 20:53, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment A G10 is a stub along the lines of "XYZ is a poo-poo head". This is not that, although the ultimate purpose might be the same. We assume that the creator of the article (who has invested a lot of time in crafting this) feels this merits inclusion in the encyclopedia, and the AFD discussion serves as a clear, unambiguous policy-based reasoning as to why it does not. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 21:25, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment As I see it, the attack criterion says "This includes libel, legal threats, material intended purely to harass or intimidate a person or an article about a living person that is entirely negative in tone and unsourced." The article is sourced, and probably not libel, but could well be "material intended purely to harass or intimidate a person". Negative stuff may be posted (when reliably sourced) about people who are notable enough for an article, but here we may well come into WP:BLP1E territory. I'm not sticking my neck out for a speedy, but would not object to a delete here under coatrack or undue - or even BLP1E. Peridon (talk) 21:13, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This will surely be closed early as WP:SNOW; that's a better outcome than a speedy, as it makes any future re-creations easier to deal with. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 21:16, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This is highly slanted against the subject, non-notable, and should be deleted ASAP. Ducknish (talk) 22:50, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Mantria Corporation Ponzi Scheme. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 16:57, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Troy Wragg[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

No indication of WP:notability outside the context of Mantria Corporation Ponzi Scheme which already covers everything. SEC links not significant coverage to establish independent notability. noq (talk) 19:20, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Non-notable. Only receives significant, independent coverage within the scope of the Mantria Scheme. dci | TALK 19:31, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Do Not Delete. Are you saying that running the biggest green energy scam in US history is not notable enough? That seems significant along, does one need to organize 2 of the biggest scams to be on wikipedia. This is on the top 50 list of biggest scams in the world. Should we remove Timothy McVeigh because he only blew up one big building? These guidelines are arbitrary, I believe. Richtowragg (talk) 19:54, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- There is no content in the article unique from that within Mantria Corporation Ponzi Scheme. The McVeigh article covers significant amounts of content unique from the bombing article. dci | TALK 20:00, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- So, if I add more content, like about his childhood that makes him notable? I am trying to understand if this article is up for deletion because there is not enough new content or the person has not committed multiple, independent crimes to be notable.Richtowragg (talk) 20:06, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - Probably not unless it has received significant coverage in WP:reliable sources. Just because he is covered in one event does not make him notable outside the context of that event. noq (talk) 20:10, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- There will be a lot of national coverage and significant sources as the criminal trial begins. Richtowragg (talk) 20:47, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - About the Ponzi scheme, not anything else. noq (talk) 23:54, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:02, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:02, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:PERP and WP:BLP1E. Mantria Corporation Ponzi Scheme is likely notable, but the article needs to be watched for BLP, WEIGHT, and RS issues. Location (talk) 02:52, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Mantria Corporation Ponzi Scheme. WP:BLP1E, should not have its own page but is a likely search term, searchers should be pointed the the scheme if interested in the subject. J04n(talk page) 17:59, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Mantria Corporation Ponzi Scheme, BLP1E, can be covered in context there. That article needs a NPOV cleanup, by the way. Sandstein 08:47, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Mantria Corporation Ponzi Scheme, per Sandstein and others. Miniapolis 13:58, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Mantria Corporation Ponzi Scheme. ⇌ Jake Wartenberg 02:20, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Amanda Knorr[edit]

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

No indication of WP:notability outside the context of Mantria Corporation Ponzi Scheme which already covers everything. Disputed prod. noq (talk) 19:17, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No notability whatsoever outside of the Mantria scam; no reasonably reliable sources establish that she's done anything else that's received even minor independent coverage. dci | TALK 19:30, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Do Not Delete. Are you saying that running the biggest green energy scam in US history is not notable enough? That seems significant along, does one need to organize 2 of the biggest scams to be on wikipedia. This is on the top 50 list of biggest scams in the world. Should we remove Timothy McVeigh because he only blew up one big building? These guidelines are arbitrary, I believe. Richtowragg (talk) 19:52, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Please see my comment at the Wragg AfD. dci | TALK 20:03, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No independent notability. All the info here is encompassed by the scope of the Mantria article Noq mentions. Ducknish (talk) 22:52, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:00, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:00, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep per WP:BARE - there is some coverage. I can't figure out significant the coverage is about her specifically, without reading every article and link on Google. Not worth it for me; she's more like Amanda Snore. Bearian (talk) 17:10, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Mantria Corporation Ponzi Scheme. WP:BLP1E, should not have its own page but is a likely search term, searchers should be pointed the the scheme if interested in the subject. J04n(talk page) 18:03, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete then Redirect to Mantria Corporation Ponzi Scheme, this is a classic WP:BLP1E case. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 01:48, 24 March 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 Userfied, author had moved it to his/her userspace for more work. (non-admin closure) Command and Conquer Expert! ^{speak to me...}_{review me...} 22:05, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Zerg Infestation[edit]

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

Unreferenced video game article - no indication of notability Mean as custard (talk) 17:34, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete - It appears to be a game mod, therefore it's highly unlikely to be notable. No references whatsoever in the article, couldn't find anything whatsoever on it in Google. Fancruft/promotional writing style as well. Lukeno94 (talk) 18:08, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Non-notable and written promotionally. öBrambleberry of RiverClan 18:33, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Non notable and not written from a NPOV. Command and Conquer Expert! ^{speak to me...}_{review me...} 18:51, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep it is notable, I don't know why Lukeno said he couldn't find anything, I googled it just now and tons of results about it came up. It's not promotional since I didn't create it and no one makes money off wc3 maps anyway. Misterrobot (talk) 19:09, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I'm going to try my hardest to WP:AGF here. The ONE thing I saw directly named "Zerg infestation" was a YouTube video. There is not a single piece of coverage in reliable sources about this game mod. Any game mod would have to have substantial coverage in reliable sources just to have a section in the game it was based off, let alone its own article. That blatantly isn't the case here. Please read WP:GNG, WP:RS, and WP:ISNOT. Finally, you can write anything promotionally without being directly connected to the project... Lukeno94 (talk) 20:39, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Add Sheep Tag to the nomination for exactly the same reasons. . . Mean as custard (talk) 19:18, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I AfDed it separately - apparently, it's been deleted thrice before... Lukeno94 (talk) 20:46, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete very, very, very, very few game mods are notable, and this isn't one. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 20:30, 16 March 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. WP:CSD#A7 --auburnpilot talk 19:09, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Farnarkelling[edit]

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

Unsourced article about a non-notable game that seems to be a recent invention of one person, and possibly a hoax. Unable to find any reliable sources, thus it fails WP:GNG. - Mr X 16:56, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as copyvio. Also, joke, hoax, parody, something made up, gaming Wikipedia, and not notable. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 17:14, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete - Obvious hoax is obvious... Just padding my stats here, ha ha! Carrite (talk) 17:45, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete - Hoax and/or copyright infringement. It doesn't matter; both should be taken away. Very soon. öBrambleberry of RiverClan 18:32, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. postdlf (talk) 16:39, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Characters of Monster High[edit]

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

A list of dolls (yes, really), consisting of originally researched character descriptions. There are no reliable sources--this is the equivalent of a list of Lego blocks: no independent significance, written by and for fans. Drmies (talk) 04:20, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Well... it's more than just dolls at this point. My nieces are obsessed with these dolls for some reason and the line is now comprised of books, games, and animated shows/movies, so it's possible that most of this is just info culled from those multiple sources. My only concern with this is that it's somewhat customary to have a spin off list of characters if the universe and main page is large enough to warrant a separate entry. This does need sourcing and a cleaning to make it less of a fan page, but there is potential merit in having a list for the characters.Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:58, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- If there is any verified content (short of a list of items sourced to the company website or a fan page) it can go in the main article--it can't be much. FWIW, I try not to let my kids watch shows like this: they're already obsessed enough with "fashion style" and such stuff. My regards to your nieces, Drmies (talk) 14:49, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:59, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:59, 22 February 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, LlamaAl (talk) 00:04, 1 March 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, —Theopolisme (talk) 00:20, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Whatever independently sourced bits and pieces (and that isn't much) can be found might have a place in one of the other articles. The rest is original research, much of it dubious: the Frankenstein one's eyes are different colors because of a genetic condition? Really? My guess (as good as the original editor's guess) would have involved the doctor taking eyes from different bodies. She's also "the 16-day-old daughter(3-year-old as of date)". I guess that means she was built 3 years ago (plus however long ago that info was mentioned), but is somehow 16 (perhaps made of the bodies of 16 year olds)? Um, yeah. Another character "currently is unmentioned in the other media", unless it's just out of date. If we remove the OR, there's nothing left; certainly not enough to meet GNG. - SummerPhD (talk) 16:11, 9 March 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, Spinning Spark 16:22, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fancruft with no out-of universe notability whatsoever. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 21:09, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I definitely agree this article is in need of a trim, but character lists are considered acceptable for notable fictional series per precedent. Monster High is unquestionably notable and includes not just dolls but a novel series, various DVDs & TV specials, a video game, etc. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 23:54, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Redirect to Johann Martin Augustin Scholz; the page is currently an improperly-formatted redirect. Non-admin closure. dci | TALK 19:04, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

John Martin Augustine Scholz[edit]

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

duplicate of page Johann Martin Augustin Scholz

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2013 March 16. Snotbot t • c » 16:20, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Johann Martin Augustin Scholz. öBrambleberry of RiverClan 18:35, 16 March 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. Keeper | 76 15:12, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Sparman Clinic[edit]

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

Prod contested on my talk page with a rationale that amounts to "I want people to know that this facility exists". Unfortunalely, there's no evidence that third-party reliable sources have taken note already. Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 15:49, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete While I can see various blogs about controversies around the Sparman Clinic, I am not finding any reliable sourced evidence (on Google, Highbeam or Questia) that it is notable in itself. AllyD (talk) 18:01, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Barbados-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:07, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:07, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:07, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete In addition to the above, I searched PubMed for this clinic as an affiliation, on the off-chance that it had been the source of scholarly notability, but there was nothing. -- Scray (talk) 08:49, 17 March 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) 18:05, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wondering Repair![edit]

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

Non-notable video game. Article has existed since 2008 without establishing notability. User:DGG declined the proposed deletion, saying "can be expanded from Japanese WP", but the Japanese article does not establish notability either. Atlantima (talk) 14:48, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Atlantima (talk) 14:56, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Atlantima (talk) 14:56, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 15:05, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Clearly fails WP:GNG in the total absence of third-party sourcing or in-depth coverage, and as mentioned above, the Japanese Wikipedia article offers no additional references or sourcing that could be used to salvage this article. --DAJF (talk) 05:39, 20 March 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 Userfication. Moving to User:Stalwart111/Lem Villemin. J04n(talk page) 18:09, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Lem Villemin[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

WP:A7, fails notability guidelines and WP:BIO. Maybe WP:TOOSOON.

I had nominated it for deletion previously before someone rejected that because it survived the previous nomination (based on void of consensus/no consensus). Apparently it isn't enough to keep it from getting re-nominated. Please comment guys. Mr T ^(Talk?) ^{(New thread?)} 11:36, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:47, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:47, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Userfy ~~Keep~~ - looking at the history, a whole bunch of content was deleted around the time of the last AFD. Probably rightly so, given it was un-sourced, but there is more available out there to substantiate an article. There's the ESPN interview with him that is cited in the article. But there's also a couple of drawcard/pro events (for Adidas) that were also covered by Transworld Skateboarding - Paris and Germany including a feature in their October 2011 issue. He was also a key part of a major Adidas advertising campaign - here. There's also a "recruitment" piece from The Berrics - here. He was also on the cover of Kingpin Magazine - here - and received covered therein with a substantive feature article. There's a bunch of minor coverage related to his being sponsored by Cliché Skateboards. My point is, while there might not be coverage in the New York Times, (like most professional skateboarders) there's plenty of coverage in magazines and other skateboarding-specific media. I'm sure the other members of WP:SKATE would be happy to help me adopt and expand it. Stalwart111 01:30, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Scratch The Berrics one - it's coverage, but I thought it had a biographical narrative over the top. It doesn't (just music) so it doesn't do much for us as a source. Will keep at it. Stalwart111 02:08, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion about the skater should be independent of the skater himself (an interview is not independent).
All of the sources are rather passing mentions of Villemin. This dude fails WP:GNG more blatantly than some of the other article which have been deleted speedily. Mr T ^(Talk?) ^{(New thread?)} 07:16, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, obviously I disagree, but I understand entirely where you're coming from. The interviews are okay for verifying certain things but not much chop for notability. But the feature pieces in Kingpin and Transworld surely count for something. There's some content in German publications (him being German and all) but my German is terrible. I agree he's not the most notable pro-skater (most being US-based who have stacks of English-language coverage) but I still think his many feature videos, his few feature articles, the interviews and his professional sponsorship deals suggest he is notable enough to warrant inclusion. Not to mention the fact that he has likely been covered in a number of smaller skate mags (esp. in Europe) that aren't available online. I wish there was a library of such things (though my productivity levels would stall) but there isn't. I'm also starting to think there might be a need for a WP:NSKATEBOARDER to make cases like this easier. But if others think that what's online isn't enough then I'll have to accept that. Stalwart111 13:35, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Kingpin says nothing about him aside from calling him a "German stylemonger". I have checked the transworld pages too, only trivial mentions. The interviews are not independent. If this subject is to be included in Wikipedia as an article he needs to be a notable skater or notable for something else. Trivial mentions won't cut it. Does German wikipedia have a page about this guy? The page about Lem Villemin in german wikipedia was deleted. Mr T ^(Talk?) ^{(New thread?)} 14:41, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think you're looking at the online stuff as opposed to the printed stuff, yeah? There is a pdf-style version (or something) of one of them. Anyway doesn't matter; have been having a chat on the article talk page too and one of my WP:SKATE colleagues suggested userfication. Under the circumstances I think that may work well. There's obviously no consensus for this to be kept in its current form (which I can accept) so how about I hold onto it for a while until there's some more (better) coverage of the guy? Would you have any objection to that? Stalwart111 23:04, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No. No objections at all. I gracefully welcome you to do that. You userfy and improve it and then we can re-include it at the right time. Mr T ^(Talk?) ^{(New thread?)} 06:09, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Good-o then, I'll do that. I still think he passes, but I'm quite happy to work on it for a while until the matter is beyond doubt. Stalwart111 07:53, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Is now at User:Stalwart111/villemin with appropriate draft tags and I have kept a copy of the talk page so that all previous deletion discussions can be noted if/when it is moved back to mainspace. Stalwart111 08:02, 3 March 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, KTC (talk) 09:15, 8 March 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, Spinning Spark 13:52, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Userfy, and remove from mainspace (it's still there) until there are mainstream sources indicating participation in competition at the highest level of the sport. Miniapolis 16:59, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, I think it's still there only because this hasn't been closed. But with three editors now in agreement on that course of action, hopefully an admin will recognise the general consensus that has emerged. Stalwart111 22:03, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 19:54, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Case magazine[edit]

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

No third-party sources to establish notability. Kelly ^hi! 13:03, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:CSD#A7. No indication of significance. Pburka (talk) 14:54, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:02, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:02, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No coverage found in reliable sources for this publication; does not appear to meet WP:GNG. Gong show 18:14, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No significance, not to mention the article is dreadfully written. öBrambleberry of RiverClan 18:40, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I've done some clean-up and re-writing as well as removing the dead external links. I won't comment on the subject's (unlikely) notability as I have not searched for sources but the need for clean-up is (almost) never a reason to delete an article. - Dravecky (talk) 18:59, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless WP:RS about the magazine can be found. While it appears that the publication has interviewed some notable subjects, that by itself does not confer notability upon the publication. --Kinu ^t/_c 19:48, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete technically not an A7 candidate, but a local small-run magazine that lasted all of 3 issues is about as non-notable as it gets. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 20:42, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

At some point A7 was extended to include organizations. I think a magazine ought to qualify, no? Pburka (talk) 23:05, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

One could interpret it either way, I guess. I wouldn't normally A7 something that's at least nominally about a physical product (A7 specifically exempts "creative works"). That said, this particular thing is so incredibly, stupendously, monumentally non-notable that the whole thing could have been IARed off the planet and I doubt anyone would raise a fuss. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 04:52, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Very small scale magazine that seems to lack any assertion of notability or any proof thereof. Ducknish (talk) 23:28, 16 March 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 WP:CSD#G11 (non-admin closure) - Mr X 17:02, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Focus of SWFL[edit]

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

Unsourced article about a non-notable magazine. I'm unable to find any reliable sources with which to establish notability. Fails WP:GNG. - Mr X 12:40, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:CSD#A7. No indication of significance. Pburka (talk) 14:55, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:01, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:01, 16 March 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. Keeper | 76 15:14, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

GorillaVid[edit]

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

Per WP:WEB and WP:GNG. No evidence this website is notable. Marokwitz (talk) 12:12, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:00, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, borderline A7. One of a seemingly infinite variety of very similar file sharing sites all descended from Rapidshare in one way or another. No assertation of notability, no reliable sources, and the only thing the article does say (the site may or may not be hosted in the US) possibly isn't even true. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 20:53, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This should have been A7ed. Can't see how it is notable beyond merely existing. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 21:11, 16 March 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. Keeper | 76 15:17, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Tihomir of Belegezitai[edit]

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

Hoax with an agenda: there is no reference anywhere for a Tihomir who was a lord of the Belegezites, nor of that matter any Tihomir in the region of Macedonia in the 8th century. The article creator had previously cited Tihomir's existence at the Belegezites article with Setton's The Bulgars in the Balkans, but Tihomir is nowhere to be found there. This is simply another of this user's articles where he shows his habit of simply making up stuff (e.g. the link asserted here between Tihomir and Akameros, a petty Byzantine client ruler in southern Thessaly) in order to create a more coherent and impressive narrative of Slavic presence in Macedonia than actually exists. Constantine ✍ 11:23, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Macedonia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:58, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:58, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:58, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, subject has not received significant coverage from multiple non-primary reliable sources, therefore the subject fails the notability guideline WP:GNG.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 16:12, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NN. Legitimate content of the WP:CFORK can be merged into Belegezites.--— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 18:21, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This figure is not so notable historical person. Jingiby (talk) 08:23, 20 March 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) 20:24, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hona Costello[edit]

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

This rapper doesn't appear to be notable. He fails WP:MUSIC and doesn't pass WP:GNG either, as the only coverage of his music I could find came from a few blogs, almost all of them self-published. TheCatalyst31 ^{Reaction•Creation} 11:14, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:55, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:55, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I'm seeing some mentions in non-notable blogs, but nothing I would consider significant coverage in reliable sources. Seems WP:TOOSOON for this rapper to meet WP:GNG or WP:MUSICBIO. Gong show 04:26, 18 March 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. per WP:SNOW. ‑Scottywong | express _ 17:12, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Gonzalo Mottura[edit]

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

It appears that Mottura has yet to play a match for any of the fully professional soccer clubs he has been signed to. As always, etc, etc. Shirt58 (talk) 10:38, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:54, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Argentina-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:54, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:54, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:54, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 15:27, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: fails WP:NFOOTY and WP:GNG. --ArsenalFan700 (talk) 20:15, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, non-notable as an athlete. Ducknish (talk) 00:00, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom. He has not received significant coverage in reliable sources or played in a fully pro league, meaning the article fails WP:GNG and WP:NSPORT. Sir Sputnik (talk) 21:26, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - this article is about a footballer that hasn't played in a fully pro league or represented his country at senior level, which means it fails WP:NFOOTY. Also fail WP:GNG due to lack of coverage in reliable sources. Mentoz86 (talk) 13:35, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Nomination withdrawn. C 679 21:38, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Berlin Ndebe-Nlome[edit]

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

Article about a player who has not played football at a professional level, references about whom only amount to routine coverage. C 679 10:02, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. C 679 10:03, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Has three appearances in the Portuguese Primeira Liga for Pacos de Ferreira in 2008/09, played in Thai Premier League for Chonburi in 2010 and 2011. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 13:04, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:50, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:50, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:50, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - meets WP:NFOOTBALL per Struway's research; needs improving, not deleting. Giant Snowman 15:26, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: per Struway's research. --ArsenalFan700 (talk) 20:18, 16 March 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. Keeper | 76 15:21, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Free Worlds League[edit]

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

Very bloated cruft article, written almost entirely in-universe in style, uses two BattleTech sourcebooks (primary sources) as the sole references and does not establish notability. Tagged for cleanup since 2008 and never improved. Delete/redirect to BattleTech#Inner Sphere.

Additionally, I nominate the following related articles.

There are a slew of other articles in the same vein (e.g. Federated Suns, etc), but many of them were not tagged for cleanup until recently. I would consider them equally worthy of removal but have not listed them due to the more recent cleanup tags.

Some guy (talk) 09:03, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:49, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:49, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:49, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete massive dump of in-universe trivia extremely unlikely to ever be reliably sourced. A merge of some kind might be possible, but the insurmountable core problem is that this is fansite material rather than encyclopedia material. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 20:59, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - As these seem to be reliable, if not notable pages, I copied them to wikialpha.org for preservation. If they get deleted, people can edit them there. Mathewignash (talk) 01:28, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As it stands, it doesn't belong here. If anyone sees it as a useful redirect to another article where it is mentioned that would be fine. --Michig (talk) 08:41, 23 March 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. Michig (talk) 08:02, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

D-Hustle[edit]

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

Was created as a template, so I've moved it to an article. Just wondering if notable enough to keep or if it should be deleted. WOSlinker (talk) 07:37, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. A search for just his stage name brought up a large number of false positives and D-Hustles that have nothing to do with this specific person, but also showed a lack of overall notability. Searches using his real name brought up nothing either. It's admirable that he's trying so hard to overcome a bad past, but unfortunately he just doesn't pass notability guidelines at this time. Hopefully one day he will, but until then... Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 09:04, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:47, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:47, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for failing WP:MUSICBIO. Unsourced BLP with no reliable sources found in search. Coverage comes from sites like Linkedin, YouTube, etc. • Gene93k (talk) 15:15, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete with no objection towards userfying - Although his album is being distributed and represented by Island Def Jam, there isn't any evidence the album or this artist has received news attention. The only primary link I have found is a Twitter account, no official website. I also found a LinkedIn profile which says he is the CEO of Hustle Investment & Holding and the founder of Legacy Entertainment but news searches for these two companies yielded nothing. There really isn't much to build an article but I have no prejudice towards a future article. SwisterTwister talk 17:44, 16 March 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. Michig (talk) 07:59, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Israel Luna[edit]

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

Delete, lacks sources separate from the subject to show notability, also appears to be a copy and paste reproduction of previously deleted material. Strongly considered csd but is claiming notability. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 06:40, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:45, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:46, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:46, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep, although the subject has not received significant coverage from multiple non-primary reliable sources; although the subject has been received multiple mentions in multiple non-primary reliable sources, the sum of those mentions would not equal significant coverage IMHO. That being said, the subject is notable per criteria #4 of WP:FILMMAKER, therefore the article should not be deleted.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 16:08, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep but rewrite. (Changing to Keep, see my comment below.) The subject has directed a couple of (marginally) notable films and probably does meet the criteria for an article. However, the article needs a complete rewrite. It was obviously copy-pasted from somewhere else (probably a Wiki mirror based on the footnote style), and it contains no independent sourcing and way too much puffery ("screening all across the country to rave reviews", "his biggest success to date creating a media storm with controversy and positive buzz", etc.). --MelanieN (talk) 19:23, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
~~weak~~ keep and rewrite. His works have received coverage enough for him to meet WP:ENT#4.[4][5] Needs work, but such appears do-able. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 10:01, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment OK, given the above comments, I just worked over the article, adding some independent references and trimming some of the puffery. --MelanieN (talk) 15:37, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for performing some of the do-able improvements. I have upped from "weak" to "keep" Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 04:45, 19 March 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 - withdrawn/WP:SNOW (non-admin close). Stalwart111 08:29, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

American Horror Story: Coven[edit]

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

Season has not even started production yet LiamNolan24 (talk) 05:01, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn by nominator - You guys brought up great (unfortunate) points. LiamNolan24 (talk) 05:36, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Reaching a particular stage of development is not a threshold. Per WP:GNG "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article or stand-alone list." There are plenty of confirmed facts being reported about the development of this project by reliable secondary sources to meet GNG. ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 05:09, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Just as a note, I think the comments made a year ago at the previous season's AfD are pertinent here. ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 05:15, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The article has to be created at some point and, although it might be a bit premature, there is significant interest in the series and a large amount of information is already available, including new and returning cast members and production locations that is specific to that season and would not be appropriate for any other page. The amount of information is only going to grow. Deleting it now would serve no purpose. -- SchrutedIt08 (talk) 05:17, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 05:23, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 05:23, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Same reasons as last year; has everything pretty much set, plenty of sources and unless FX's satellite crashes to Earth, it's going to air, no question. Nate • (chatter) 06:19, 16 March 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. Michig (talk) 07:55, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Trinomial option pricing in Java[edit]

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

An unsourced article consisting of an algorithm and some Java code. Seems to be original research. Fails WP:NOTHOWTO. - Mr X 02:35, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. - Mr X 02:38, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - unreferenced, no indication of notability, unecyclopedic/OR block of computer code. Dialectric (talk) 12:08, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Wikipedia is not Pastebin. Pburka (talk) 15:00, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Wikipedia is not a code repsoitory. -- Whpq (talk) 22:20, 18 March 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. Keeper | 76 15:26, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Adis hadzanovic[edit]

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

Contested PROD. Concern was that the article may not satisfy WP:GNG or WP:NFOOTY. PROD was contested by the article's creator without providing a reason. Sir Sputnik (talk) 02:35, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 02:40, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no indication that this individual has played senior international football or club football in a fully professional league. No significant coverage either, so fails guidelines per nom. C 679 10:07, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bosnia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:40, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:40, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:40, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 15:26, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:NFOOTY and WP:GNG. --ArsenalFan700 (talk) 20:20, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Plays in Estonia - "As of 2009 it is not fully professional; only six teams are professionals, and the other four teams are semi-professional." Do the articles in Estonian and Bosnian newspapers count for WP:GNG? In ictu oculi (talk) 12:34, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes they do, per WP:GNG: Sources are not required to be available online, and they are not required to be in English. Mentoz86 (talk) 13:31, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - this article is about a footballer that hasn't played in a fully pro league or represented his country at senior level, which means it fails WP:NFOOTY. Also fail WP:GNG due to lack of coverage in reliable sources. Mentoz86 (talk) 13:32, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was withdrawn. per WP:WITHDRAWN (non-admin closure) Mediran (t • c) 02:19, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

List of homophobic Filipino personalities[edit]

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

Unremarkable topic wherein it only includes few Filipino personalities who's homophobic. Mediran (t • c) 02:17, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. WP:NPASR Mark Arsten (talk) 19:55, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

411 PAIN[edit]

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

This company does not appear to meet the WP:CORP criteria for notability, especially WP:CORPDEPTH. At the time of nomination, most of the cited sources do not contribute to notability: they are all primary sources (8, 11), routine coverage such as press releases (2, 3, 6, 7, 9, 10), etc. The only source that appears to have anything about the company is 1, and although I can't read it in full, the article appears to be about the type of service in general, not this specific company. —Darkwind (talk) 07:12, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I spotted this company when researching something in highbeam research and googling it seems it is a major firm in this field. Highbeam Research has plenty of sources for 411-PAIN. Florida Trend cites it as a leading firm in its field in the state. That the article has been hijacked by User:411 Painwiki and countless ips adding spam links attracting neutrality/cleanup tags does not justify this being deleted. It needs watching and protecting. It meets guidelines for companies on wikipedia and also passes WP:GNG by number of reliable sources which exist on it.I can think of numerous companies on here and which are missing which are actually notable but not many sources write in detail on the history of the company and most sources are derived from newspaper articles mentioning them such as acquisitions and charity involvement etc.♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 11:58, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:22, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:22, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Tom Morris (talk) 12:57, 9 March 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, Mediran (t • c) 02:06, 16 March 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 List of FIFA Club World Championship and Club World Cup goalscorers. J04n(talk page) 21:59, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

List of FIFA Club World Championship and Club World Cup goalscorers (one goal)[edit]

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

The topic of this article not meet WP:GNG. NickSt (talk) 02:02, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:14, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:14, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:15, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per WP:LISTCRUFT. Giant Snowman 15:25, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - indiscriminate list that, if filled, would be approximately the size of the River Amazon. Lukeno94 (talk) 18:16, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I fail to see how a list of players that have scored exactly one goal is encyclopedic. --Kinu ^t/_c 19:23, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I would not be averse to the merge back suggested below. --Kinu ^t/_c 00:31, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: This article is completely unnecessary. --ArsenalFan700 (talk) 20:23, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with List of FIFA Club World Championship and Club World Cup goalscorers, as has already been proposed. The complete list of scorers would not be excessively large, I don't really see why this list was broken out in the first place..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 21:17, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge back whence it came. The notability of that list might be questionable, as well, but if it exists, it might as well be complete. I suspect this list was broken out in the hope that its creator might get two featured lists out of the concept rather than just one... cheers, Struway2 (talk) 21:51, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Chris and Struway. Mentoz86 (talk) 13:29, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus and move to Military Spouse. Actually, there is no consensus, and the nomination could be closed as such. However, we have two opinions that she fails WP:GNG, and one opinion that the journal is better covered by WP:GNG than its founder, therefore the middle ground seems to be move.Ymblanter (talk) 18:20, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Babette Maxwell[edit]

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

I don't see any notability whatsoever. The bio centers around the magazine she founded (which itself might be notable), but that doesn't merit notability for her biography. Plus, FYI, creator User:Dmax5o looks to be a single-purpose account. bender235 (talk) 20:29, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:13, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:13, 23 February 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, LlamaAl (talk) 00:00, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but consider move to Military Spouse. She and the magazine have some press coverage[6][7] and Google News has some pay-to-view stories. --Colapeninsula (talk) 12:54, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:30, 9 March 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, Mediran (t • c) 02:03, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for failing WP:GNG. Qworty (talk) 06:21, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to The Adventures of Sharkboy and Lavagirl in 3-D. Keeper | 76 21:30, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Taylor Dooley[edit]

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

Her only major role was in The Adventures of Sharkboy and Lavagirl in 3-D (all her other roles were either minor or guest roles or in short, non-notable films), which she was nominated for, but did not win, a single award and she has not contributed to the entertainment industry in any way. While she does have an official website and Twitter account, they are not being updated or referred to frequently, a good indication that she is not a mainstream actress (in fact, she has not acted in nearly four years), and cannot be used alone to determine her fan base. Any fan site I see are either Wikipedia mirrors or talk about her as Lavagirl only, the latter violating our policy of WP:NOTINHERITED as she is being liked only because her character or the film is popular (in fact, the article was created around the time of the movie's release), though this does not seem to be the case for critics and box office statistics. Clearly, she fails WP:ANYBIO and WP:NACTOR. The former states that an individual must have won a notable award or be nominated for several ones while the latter states an actor must have done significant roles in multiple well-known films and shows. The Legendary Ranger (talk) 01:55, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge (selectively) to The Adventures of Sharkboy and Lavagirl in 3-D. I can't find much in-depth coverage of her online, just this much-reproduced biography[8] and a pay-to-view article I've not read[9]. But the article on the film has a rather scrappy cast section that her basic bio could be included in. --Colapeninsula (talk) 16:26, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:22, 2 March 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, Tofutwitch11 ^(TALK) 02:31, 9 March 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, Mediran (t • c) 02:02, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to The Adventures of Sharkboy and Lavagirl in 3-D. Nothing to really merge (any article made up more gushing about an actor's friendships is content that needs to be removed), subject has starred only in low interest direct-to-DVD projects after Sharkboy. After eight years there's not really much here to justify an article for the subject. Nate • (chatter) 06:24, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I don't think this person is notable; however, I don't know I'm allowed to make a vote here since I'm an IP. Am I? --24.145.65.56 (talk) 08:17, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, we don't disqualify IP's from voting in AfD's as long as they have good reasoning for their rationale. Nate • (chatter) 21:18, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If that's the case then definitely delete - she was only in one major movie, everything else she's done is way low key. --24.145.65.56 (talk) 04:07, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 19:56, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Embedded Systems Conference[edit]

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

Admittedly I'm not certain the notability criteria for events, but seeing that it has been tagged for 3 years, best to sort it out. CorporateM (Talk) 21:56, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:23, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:23, 3 March 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, Mediran (t • c) 01:51, 9 March 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, Mediran (t • c) 01:45, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no independent sourcing EE Times is the sponsor of the conference, not an independent source. The others are just mentions. DGG ( talk ) 02:02, 16 March 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. J04n(talk page) 17:43, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Lorenzo Sebastiani[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:NFOOTY. WP:NOTMEMORIAL also seems to come into play. It should be noted that the article creator in a matter of days has created over a dozen articles, half have been CSD, and the editor themselves has been indefinitely blocked. Mkdw ^talk 23:18, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:34, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Rugby union-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:35, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:35, 3 March 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, Mediran (t • c) 01:50, 9 March 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, Mediran (t • c) 01:45, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - He's a rugby player, so NFOOTY is totally irrelevant. Not only this, but he's played two top-flight games in Italian rugby, if the Italian wiki page is to be believed (the reference that may or may not prove this, both at the Italian wiki and here, is a dead link). [10] is coverage of his death. He's mentioned here: [11] Coverage of his memorial tournaments: [12][13]. Other stuff: [14][15][16][17]. NOTMEMORIAL is a valid concern, but this guy received a huge amount of coverage at the time, and still does, whenever his memorial tournament is played. Lukeno94 (talk) 18:38, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per Wikipedia:WikiProject Rugby union/Notability. In ictu oculi (talk) 05:03, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to The Runaways#Early years. Keeper | 76 15:31, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Peggy Foster[edit]

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

it has been PROD'd once before & refused with a recommendation to take to AFD. IMO this fails WP:MUSICBIO, Fosters claim to fame is being a member of The Runaways for one month - before they became famous, notability is NOT INHERITED. Does not feature on any Runaways recordings and has only done minor session work since. Thanks 149.241.58.99 (talk) 00:06, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I am completing this nomination on behalf of the above IP user, using the rationale posted at WT:AFD. I have no opinion. jcgoble3 (talk) 01:40, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:11, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to The_Runaways#Early_years - It seems she is best known for briefly playing with The Runaways and it is relevant for redirecting. A Google News search provided some results with this one where she briefly speaks at a ceremony for Sandy West. Google Books also provided a few results but, of course, mainly for The Runaways. Allmusic lists some recordings for Steve Vai but I haven't found anything substantial for being sponsored by Travis Bean Guitars. All in all, there isn't much about her and she seems to be living a quiet life now. SwisterTwister talk 18:19, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as above. Not individually significant enough for a separate article, but valid as a redirect. --Michig (talk) 08:26, 23 March 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 early close and keep per WP:SNOW and ample precedent at WP:OUTCOMES. Bearian (talk) 17:12, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Lulwa Khas, India[edit]

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

Non English article listed at WP:PNTFC for more than two weeks. Not eligible for PROD. -- Patchy1 REF THIS BLP 01:22, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:27, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ Keep - ~~Non-English content that has not been translated. - Mr X 01:30, 16 March 2013 (UTC)~~ changing my !vote to keep as article has been translated. - Mr X 02:53, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- It has had its waiting period, and has gone untranslated. Ducknish (talk) 00:14, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- sufficient waiting period to translate and very little content. -- Michael Scott Cuthbert (talk) 05:07, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I've run it through Google Translator and it turned out to be a village in Rajasthan. Actually just a one-liner but afaik we don't delete populated places. De728631 (talk) 02:07, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Thanks for creating that stub, De728631. Lectonar (talk) 16:25, 19 March 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. Consensus is that the main article adequately covers the relevant information for this group of non-notable people. Useless redirect; hence delete. I have also IAR deleted the redirect that sparked off this AfD, as it is no longer necessary/ Black Kite (talk) 15:16, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

List of Big Brother 10 housemates (UK)[edit]

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

Generally a list such as this might be notable, but the living people this list is comprised of are not. This article is causing one of the subjects distrress. Since this is relatively "unencylopedic"' we should IAR and delete. little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer 00:49, 16 March 2013 (UTC) little green rosetta(talk)[reply]
central scrutinizer 00:49, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Coatrack with little encyclopedic value and enormous BLP issues. This is best treated as a simple bulleted list of names in the main article, without descriptions that would make a tabloid editor blush and personal details of people who have long since moved on from the "contest" and their 15 seconds of fame. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 00:56, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is one of those occasions (there are plenty more) where we should ask ourselves what it is we're trying to accomplish with this beautiful project. This stuff is of no value today, and of even less value tomorrow. Drmies (talk) 01:06, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
delete WP:IDONTLIKEIT Andy Dingley (talk) 01:08, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Meets GNG, as far as I can tell as the subject of multiple instances of substantial indepently-published coverage. Andy gets kudos for honesty, but GNG is the law of the land and protects the work of us all from the IDONTLIKEITs of others. Carrite (talk) 01:27, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:33, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:33, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:34, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ - This looks like a big case of IDONTLIKEIT and omg someone complained let's AfD it. This article has many many reliable sources for the information in it. The people described in the list voluntarily publicized their lives on the show. Over half of the paragraphs are about the show itself, which means that it does make sense as a list. Honestly, it is of value, as I guarantee you someone looks back at that season, maybe they have it recorded, and wonders who exactly was on the show. It has a purpose, meets GNG (if nothing else), therefore keep. gwickwire^talk_editing 02:07, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- On second thought, everything in this list could be better on the main article for the season under a section heading, and shortened considerably. For that reason, ~~Merge~~ to the season's article. gwickwire^talk_editing 14:06, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - Information is all present in main article now, Delete. gwickwire^talk_editing 03:23, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – Just make sure that any reported personal info is from reliable sources. Pare out anything that's not. Dicklyon (talk) 02:17, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, Wikipedia is not censored and while I symphasise with the person whom distress is being caused by their stint on BB, this isn't Soviet Russia and things can't be "unhappened". Also, just deleting one list of BB housemates would only cause it to get recreated to fill in the list; the Streisand effect might also be worth mentioning here. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:32, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect to Big Brother 10 (UK). It's a list of thoroughly non-notable people with tons of fancruft details. Way way trivial, going into excessive detail beyond what any professional encyclopedia would do, even if they had our resources. Can you imagine Britannica doing such a list? I strongly objected on WP:CENSOR grounds to the removal of a single entry, but removal is appropriate if all of the others are also removed on unrelated grounds. Nyttend (talk) 04:32, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- What Britannica would or would not do is irrelevant; Wikipedia is not paper, and asking "What Would Britannica Do?" is a sure way to mediocricy. While not essential, of course, these articles are, or should- and could be, reliably sourced and proper spin-outs of the main article on each series. Are the other ten going to be deleted as well? Because deleting one, as I mentioned above, will only invoke the Streisand effect, and would set a disturbing precedent, as well. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:44, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - I relish such a disturbance, Bushranger. Seriously, I don't think these are proper spin-outs: it's trivial biographical detail most of which has nothing whatsoever to do with why they were on the show or indeed what they did on the show (which is nothing anyway). I say we set a precedent here, and to make you eat your crow you'll have to nominate all the other ones by hand. Drmies (talk) 04:53, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    - I'll take ketchup and Twinkle with that crow. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 06:48, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; each of these individuals is notable for one event, the TV show. The accumulation of the same one event times something doesn't make them more notable. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 04:39, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This is supposed to be a proper encyclopedia, not a collection of Western pop culture fancruft - this kind of meaningless trivia belongs in a fan blog. (And yes, each individual one of them has only one-event notability - and we don't carry lists of everyone who has ever appeared on a TV show) -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:05, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
PS: I take the point that the particular series of the show has achieved sufficient reliable coverage for notability - just not this spin-off list of painfully unimportant personal trivia. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:08, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - useless, non-encyclopedic fancruft - Alison ^❤ 08:34, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There is an entire class of articles identical to this. The article is an off-shoot from a main parent and there are dozens of them across the entire Big Brother franchise (and quite possibly other similar reality TV shows). Typically the format is: Big_Brother_10_(UK)#Housemates - branching to the biographical stubs article here up for deletion. A decision should be taken on the entire class of articles, not only this specific article following a complaint by an alleged former contestant. Leaky Caldron 10:59, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Much as we might like to edit out Britain's more recent embarrassing history the reality is that the list covers a major British cultural phenomenon of the 00s. And no there isn't anything we can do about that.©Geni 12:05, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Do you not think the articles about the series themselves are sufficient to cover the cultural phenomenon? -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:30, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"sufficient" is irreverent. Given the depressingly large number of sources that cover such things there is enough sourced info to write such an article which is all that matters.©Geni 15:06, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think we should indeed be deciding what is "sufficient" in terms of quality encyclopedic content and not just equating quantity of sources with quantity of Wikipedia content - in my opinion, an encyclopedia should be trying to resist bias towards pop culture recentism. But I accept that I seem to be in a minority on that one. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:50, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The accepted method of dealing with bias in article topics is to expand coverage in other areas.©Geni 02:00, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree - maximum possible wordage should not be our aim - we should be expanding encyclopedic material and reducing unencyclopedic material. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:41, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose delete Delete will result in redlink problems on the main article to which these bio summaries are subordinated. Merge, if anything. Leaky Caldron 12:44, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Don't delete because it will cause redlinks" doesn't stop almost any other deletion at AfD! Andy Dingley (talk) 14:06, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to /dev/null. Thincat (talk) 14:41, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is far too much detail about a (popular) TV show. I haven't found any WP policy documents about how much plot and character detail should be in TV or book articles, but this is just excessive. The fact that this is a partially scripted "reality" show really doesn't change how we should summarize it. This is vastly more detail than, for example, a season of Coronation Street. Dingo1729 (talk) 16:41, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Chalk and cheese. CS is broadcast 5 times a week 52 weeks a year. It doesn't have "seasons" and is not in a genre comparable with a short, seasonal reality TV show. Leaky Caldron 16:47, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That simply reinforces what I said. This is far too much detail.Dingo1729 (talk) 18:28, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The idea of Merger is not a bad one. Carrite (talk) 17:49, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep; Wikipedia is not censored.--Laun chba ller 17:56, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- How does that apply here? Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 17:57, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to the season article, do the same for any other similar "reality TV show" article. Pure fancruft, containing BLP violations and all sorts of other garbage. Lukeno94 (talk) 17:59, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to the related series 10 article. While I am shocked that the negative information in the article that has been removed had been there for so long, AFD isn't the place to discuss that aspect of the article. However, I do feel that these people in the list aren't notable outside of the show and there is probably very little interest in them at all now, if any. I think we could just give basic information about the individuals, and remove the details about what they did in the house, as the important parts will be under the summary section anyway. Therefore separate lists are probably not needed, and we could do this for all 14 UK series of Big Brother. –anemone projectors– 21:03, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Wikipedia has once again shown itself to be incapable of policing the content of these types of articles, to the detriment of their subjects. The contestants are already listed in the main article and there is no need for this fancruft to be recorded anywhere, so deletion is preferable to a merge. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 21:26, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Weak merge into the season article. Ugh. What do you do about an article where notability and verifiability aren't really an issue, but it presents POV BLP issues about a bunch of people who aren't really public figures in the legal sense? There isn't really an ideal solution, but paring it down considerably and putting it into a parent article where more eyeballs would be on it to keep problems away sure would help. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 22:38, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. We have a big list of all the Apprentice candidates, quite a few have their own articles. So, if anything, we need to greatly expand the list by adding much more personal details about each of the contestants. Whether we like it or not, the very reason why programs like Big Brother are so popular is because people like to know about these things. 23:44, 16 March 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Count Iblis (talk • contribs)
- That they're popular for some reason doesn't mean we have to regurgitate the details. Drmies (talk) 01:33, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - Wikipedia is about the World as it exists, not about how we think it should be. It is up to the public to not like Big Brother anymore, then these programs will stop and then we don't have to compile these lists anymore. Count Iblis (talk) 14:54, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    - No, it's not a diary NE Ent 16:13, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      - We should certainly not include every last detail of the personal lives of these people, even if they can be found in the popular (tabloid) press. But some basic information about each of the contestants isn't too much, in fact Wikipedia's coverage of Big Brother would be incomplete without this information. Whether we like it or not, the whole point of Big Brother is that people participating in there expose part of their private lives. Count Iblis (talk) 16:32, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        WP:OTHERSTUFF isn't really an argument. The last thing needed is an expansion on non-notables. Blackmane (talk) 16:56, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- per Alison and Doc Mies. 2601:0:5A80:49:ACB9:C42E:4B97:B16F (talk) 06:01, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I don't think this article is fancruft. It has reliable sources, fits notability requirements, and I think it should be included TempName1 (talk) 08:17, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Which notability-criteria are met? Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 13:00, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect to Big Brother 10 (UK). Far too detailed list of trivia, not encyclopedic. If they made something notable during the contest, then mention what they did. You don't have to explain all their personal life details. Wikipedia is not a tabloid nor a entertainment magazine, it doesn't need to explain at length the life of every contestant in a TV contest. --Enric Naval (talk) 14:25, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete We don't have articles on every character that ever appeared in a TV show, and a "reality" show is real people manipulated and edited into revenue producing drama for the producers of the show. We can have adequate encyclopedic coverage of the show with a single article without a fancruft split out page. We have plausible evidence this is causing a real person some distress, and it's not going to cost hurt our reputation as an encyclopedia if this isn't here. I don't see why providing a tremendous service to the world -- the best compilation of information in the history of the world -- has to be incompatible with compassion. NE Ent 14:32, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Modify the article On balance, I think it helpful to use a different principle; since we're an encyclopedia, I think it wrong to cater to the publicity hungry in this or any other part of Wikipedia. We should either include all the candidates, or none of them, and treat them in the same manner. We should compromise, by omitting the last names and other personal information, and just discuss the actions on the show. Unfortunately, to a considerable extent such shows are notable because the people have a real life; I suppose that's the main point of the genre. I think everyone is judging here by what they thing of the social or moral value of the genre. I despise it, but I still think it best to take an intermediate position. DGG ( talk ) 18:13, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I assume anything that is related to the actual show back is already in the main article. Leave out the unrelated tabloid facts. I see no purpose, for example, for giving their current address, as that is of no encyclopedic value for a contestant on a reality TV show. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 20:53, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I believe there are similar articles on all the previous Big Brother series. Keep or delete them all, they must be treated all the same, and the range of information about the individual participants must be all the same, one article must not be deleted because one person who is mentioned does not like it, and that person's information must not be different in character from the information given for the other contestants - ie if it is decided to delete the dob, occupation, location of the person who complained then such information must also be deleted from all the other contestants' information.Smeat75 (talk) 02:47, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Depending on how this one pans out, those may or may not need to be AFD'd as well. Blackmane (talk) 13:11, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. There may be one or two contestants that have gone on to other things that warrant a stand alone article, which would be subject to our standard policies on WP:N/V/BLP, but the list itself is superfluous for a variety of reasons, as is some of the content. That other lists exist only demonstrates a need to review them at the conclusion of this AfD. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 13:35, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I agree too - this one should be a good test case. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:40, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Despite the existence of reliable sources for the information, these people are only known for their appearance on the show. Beyond that, they are not notable for any other reason. Per WP:BLP1E all of them fall short of notablity. Blackmane (talk) 10:13, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- And BLP1E is exactly why they're in a list instead of individual articles; lists are used for people and things who are notable as a group (which these are) but not notable individually (which they aren't). - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:21, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - and merge anything that isn't cruft to the main article. It's an unnecessary spinout. Sergecross73 msg me 15:36, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Falls under BLP1E if nothing else; most of these people aren't notable for anything else. Even if you count them as notable for being on the show, the list includes random facts about their lives that have nothing to do with the show. While we include such detail for fictional characters, the fact that real people are involved raises BLP considerations. Ken Arromdee (talk) 18:50, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- See reply above to Blackmane re BLP1E. Absolutely cruft should be trimmed; deletion? Perhaps not. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:21, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

BLP1E requires making an article about the event. To satisfy BLP1E you can't have a list of people; a list of people isn't an article about the event. Furthermore, the event "person X appears on Big Brother" isn't notable enough to be an article about an event anyway. Ken Arromdee (talk) 03:35, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

BLP1E requires making an article about the event. Er...there is an article about the event: Big Brother 10 (UK). - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 13:26, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

We're not trying to delete that article, we're trying to delete this one. This one should be removed, since it's not an article about the event, and Big Brother 10 (UK) can be kept.

Also, I'm not convinced that the event is the entire program, rather than "person X's appearance on the program". Ken Arromdee (talk) 19:34, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. A group of people notable for one event, about which we already have an article, does not warrant a list article about the group - essentially a collection of little stubs, cruft magnets, about 1E people. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 02:40, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - reality show contestants are generally not celebrities or public figures. Unless they go on to become public figures or have other acting jobs (like, say, some of the Survivor contestants), we don't need extensive bios of them. --B (talk) 04:31, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - (and merge into Big Brother 10 (UK)). Single-event people; the TV show's article already lists them. --Noleander (talk) 15:48, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Merge any BLP violations should be removed, any insignificant detail should be removed. I have no idea what constitutes significant detail in this context, however we have subject matter experts who curate these pages, and of course more BLP experts than you can shake a stick at. Rich Farmbrough, 15:51, 20 March 2013 (UTC).[reply]
Keep or Merge -- This was a high profile format. I suspect that merging will make the series article too long, so that there is merit in having this as a separate list article. A few winners have gone on to be separately notable, but a split, where each contestant got an article, inevitably be followed by these being merged back here; hence we should keep it in some form. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:00, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Covered adequately in the article on the show. --Michig (talk) 08:24, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A group of people only known for one event. It's basically amounts to being just a list of non-notable people. Big_Brother_10_(UK)#Housemates already covers more than what needs to be mentioned so no merge required. Implausible redirect name, there is no need to keep the redirect either. IRWolfie- (talk) 11:37, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List of earthquakes in Georgia (country). per nom and consensus. Redirect Keeper | 76 21:32, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

2009 Georgia earthquake[edit]

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

Not a notable event. The USGS reports a magnitude of 5.9 with a maximum felt intensity of V "Rather Strong" on the Mercalli Intensity Scale. Some damage to buildings but no deaths. This is mainly a news story (Wikinews has an article) and there's nothing about this event that makes it worthy of inclusion here. Dawnseeker2000 21:10, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Georgia (country)-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:47, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:47, 10 March 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, Automatic Strikeout (T • C) 00:35, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Minor earthquakes occur all the time and unless one were to be large or serious enough to distinguish itself, it's non-notable. Ducknish (talk) 00:18, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete but someone should offer to userfy this page to the creator (if still active) or someone else at the WP:EARTHQUAKE. Medium or rare (small for California but big for Georgia) earthquakes probably should be consolidated to a catchall page, and this is a good candidate for that. Shadowjams (talk) 01:56, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I left a note here for the Earthquake people. I don't anticipate any objection on canvassing grounds because I don't think anyone would object, but just so my motives are clear, full disclosure. Shadowjams (talk) 02:01, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination withdrawn - I've created List of earthquakes in Georgia (country). We can just redirect the article to the new list. Dawnseeker2000 03:15, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nice work. – SJ + 21:25, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Mediran (t • c) 01:17, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Critter Country[edit]

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

This is simply one part of the massive Disneyland in California and does not have enough gravitas to stand on its own. In short, it is simply not Notable. GeorgeLouis (talk) 00:34, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:31, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:32, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ (changing to Keep, see below) Not independently notable. I was going to suggest a redirect, but since there is a Critter Country in several different Disney parks it is not obvious what the redirect target should be.--MelanieN (talk) 02:53, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: This article is part of a series of organized articles on Disney (see the nav templates on them all). Also, nom is wrong, in that this theme section also exists at the Toyko facility.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 04:48, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Organized puff pieces, you mean. GeorgeLouis (talk) 06:56, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not saying they can't stand improvement, there is an incredible amount published about these places, 1000 year old Buddhist shrines could never compete.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 12:00, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I took a shot at rewriting some of the body of the article. Critter Country/Bear Country appears to have received significant coverage in multiple reliable sources, which would at least satisfy WP:GNG. I think enough material exists to warrant a standalone page. Gong show 08:18, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I agree with Gongshow.-- Astros4477 (Talk) 14:25, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, subject has received significant coverage in multiple non-primary reliable sources, therefore the subject clearly passes WP:GNG. I am unaware of any stricter limiting notability guideline for the subject of this AfD. Article appears to be a sub-article of two other articles.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 15:51, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Sufficient sourcing showing in the footnotes for a GNG pass. Note also that this is a sub-page, intended to help keep the main topic from becoming unwieldy. Carrite (talk) 17:52, 16 March 2013 (UTC) Last edit: Carrite (talk) 17:54, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm changing my opinion to Keep based on the significant improvement to the article and its sourcing by Gongshow. Good work! --MelanieN (talk) 19:10, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep it's at two parks, not just one, and like pretty much everything from Disney it's received plenty of coverage, not surprisingly since it's been around for 40 years and visited by millions each year. While it's generally poor form to say to keep something because similar articles exists, in this case our coverage of Disney attractions is actually really comprehensive and generally excellent, and if the nom or anyone thinks the level of coverage should be reduced it makes more sense to discuss that as a larger issue rather than to snipe a single article out of dozens seemingly at random. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 23:02, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - has received reliable coverage. Obviously. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 00:31, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List of The X Factor finalists (U.S. season 2)#Fifth Harmony. The consensus seems to be that this group might be notable soon (that is the dominant rationale used for both keep and redirect !votes). Those supporting redirect have shown that, if they might the notable in the future, they are not notable yet, and so should not have an article yet. The consensus thus seems to be that the article should be redirected now, but that the band might be notable enough for an article in the future. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 17:08, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Fifth Harmony[edit]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: ((subst:spa|username)); suspected canvassed users: ((subst:canvassed|username)); accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: ((subst:csm|username)) or ((subst:csp|username)).

AfDs for this article:

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

Previous AfD result was redirect, notability issues have not been overcome at this time. Still does not meet WP:NMUSIC. Tgeairn (talk) 00:32, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:28, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect As argued before with last year's group Lakoda Rayne (which had a member break up and the usual iTunes single), until they make an album and stay together beyond a year, the redirect to List of The X Factor finalists (U.S. season 2)#Fifth Harmony should be maintained. Too many junk sources here using fan sites, Twitter responses and copyvio YouTube videos. Nate • (chatter) 06:31, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. I favored a redirect the last time around. Since the previous discussion, and after the show ended, some coverage has emerged detailing the group and its activities, so my rationale this time will be a bit longer:

Dec. 28- Is Fifth Harmony The New One Direction? (MTV)

Jan. 17- Fifth Harmony got a record deal. (MTV)

Feb. 19 Fith Harmony hits the studio for their first recording sessions (The Hollywood Reporter)

Feb. 20 A day later, they're still "hard at work" in the studio. (MTV)

Feb. 27 Their version of a Frank Ocean tune is uploaded to YouTube. (The Hollywood Reporter)

Mar. 4 They were featured on a Fuse TV segment (Huffington Post)

The case for an individual article is stronger now than it was even a month ago, though their post-reality show career still seems a bit too preliminary for my tastes. It's also telling that the "(2013-present)" section of the Fifth Harmony page is only one paragraph (and unsourced, at that). It's a close call, though, because there's definitely coverage in reliable sources for the group, even post-reality show. On the other (other) hand, the sources still identify them as the "X-Factor girl group", so I'm not sure how "separately notable" they've truly become (maybe once a proper single/album is released). Until it's less ambiguous, I think it's reasonable to simply sum up the above coverage in a couple sentences within the group's section of the List of The X Factor finalists (U.S. season 2) page, which is already well-detailed and well-sourced. Gong show 09:37, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep would be my first choice. Deleting this would hardly be a grand injustice against world culture or anything, but it seems to me better to wait and see what happens with the album, which is already recorded and apparently has big names attached (like Demi Lovato). Yeah, it's generally not on to keep an article based on things in the future, but it also seems silly to delete or redirect this with the strong possibility of having to re-create in a month or two. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 22:13, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect Not notable enough yet. Unreal7 (talk) 20:00, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep at least they have a Teen Choice Award nomination now and some Popdust award (not particularly notable)... the List of X Factor finalists article is also far from being perfectly cited (the ^{[citation needed]} inline tags in the article should also apply there), could always use more expansion with citations and people are likely to prefer editing the Fifth Harmony article instead⊾maine12329⊿ talk 12:10, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
'Delete and redirect to List of popes' - As I said in the first AfD, "A wise man once said, 'The Master said, 'If you are to say anything, say, 'babu badaba bobuma babinueax bambino bombo. --Lord Bromblemore 18:03, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep I'm actually really torn by this decision knowing that they are still not widely known across the world in different countries only on the talent show The X Factor . We might have to keep this up just in case they do release a single or album and go worldwide. However their sources still do not indicate that the girl group have reached full notability to create an article. For that reason alone it should be deleted but there is so much controversy here because sources do indicate many things which is gaining them more coverage since the show ended in December. If it does however get deleted we are risking the chances of it be deleted when they have reached full notice and notability.

Simon Cowell compares Fifth Harmony to One Direction December 20, 2012

Simon Cowell signs Fifth Harmony January 17, 2013

'X Factor's' Fifth Harmony Signs With Syco Music, Epic Records (Exclusive) January 17, 2013

'X Factor's' Fifth Harmony Hit the Studio in L.A. for First Sessions Feburary 19, 2013

Fifth Harmony Looking To Become The Next Spice Girls February 20, 2013

Fifth Harmony Reunites With Demi Lovato — Watch The Video February 25, 2013

'X Factor's Fifth Harmony Covers Frank Ocean (Video) February 27, 2013

A day in the life on Fuse March 4, 2013

Lana Del Rey’s “American” Covered By Fifth Harmony: Watch March 11, 2013

X Factor notes Emblem3, Fifth Harmony and Astro March 13, 2013

Going off on what I was saying there is still a lot of coverage to be made by this group so it's all undecided here! These sources are still weak and not strong enough to hold an article which is why I'm leaning more towards the side of it being redirected to List of The X Factor finalists (U.S. season 2)#Fifth Harmony. Only because this article is poorly sited the sources are not clear and there is way too much confusing on what the article is talking about. For Example Brooke and two members are Latino, Normani Kordei is the only member in the group that's African American and there's too much talk about fan bases and celebrities being tweeted which has nothing to do about how much notice they have achieve outside of the show! Welcometothenewmillennium 22:42, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There's enough information on the group to warrant a stand-alone article. An AFD is quite ridiculous. — Statυs (talk, contribs) 23:17, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of The X Factor finalists (U.S. season 2)#Fifth Harmony per WP:BLP1E - they still have not gained notability beyond The X Factor so do not require a stand-alone article. If they have an impact on record charts somewhere in the world then they could have an article, but for now, the list entry is fine. –anemone projectors– 13:22, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I just don't know –anemone projectors– I mean I agree with you being the fact they are not fully notable have or have gained enough coverage and the article should be redireted to List of The X Factor finalists (U.S. season 2)#Fifth Harmony but then I disagree with you when you say they have not achieved any coverage or notability actually they have as my links were stating as time goes by they are getting more and more famous then they were when they were formed together on the show. I know for a fact that they are not notable and have gained full coverage but that still does not indicate that the article should be deleted and redirected to List of The X Factor finalists (U.S. season 2)#Fifth Harmony because if it were up to me I would immediately delete the article but its not and we should wait and see what will happen to them in the near future as they are gaining more and more coverage and notability. Welcometothenewmillennium 22:41, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I just want to give a shout out that Ally Brooke and I are the same age she's 19 years old and so am I she was born July 7, 1993 and I was born October 6, 1993! My next shout out is that I'm gay and always have been ever since I was born and didn't realize till now I'm thankful for what god gave me and appreciate him it feels so good to come out of the closet on Wikipedia because I now feel more proud about myself and who I am as a person. Welcometothenewmillennium 05:34, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. A steady rumble of coverage in reliable sources since the end of X Factor demonstrates that Fifth Harmony meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline. Now that they've been signed to Cowell's label and are releasing an album, the sources establishing notability will continue to roll in ([18][19]) and readers will continue to come to Wikipedia looking for information. In the past 90 days, there have been over 100,000 page views for 'Fifth Harmony'. As it stands, Fifth Harmony meets WP:GNG as well as WP:BAND criteria #1 and they are the subject of multiple, non-trivial, published works appearing in reliable sources such as those linked by Gongshow and Welcometothenewmillenium. Gobōnobō ⁺ ^c 04:09, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. All the top 10 of this season of American Idol season 12 already have articles, and they have much less notability outside the show than Fifth Harmony. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sodajuice (talk • contribs) 06:46, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Just because the top 10 of one show have pages doesn't necessarily mean that this page should be kept. Zappa O Mati 07:00, 24 March 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 Venomous Concept. Sandstein 08:45, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Poisoned Apple[edit]

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

Unsourced article. I could not find evidence that it ever hit the charts. The Banner talk 22:51, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Fails WP:GNG, fails WP:BAND. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs)

Merge losslessly to Venomous Concept - Album belongs to a band with at least two notable musicians. IMHO, the following steps need to be taken in order:

Determine whether Kevin Sharp and Danny Herrera are notable
Determine whether or not Venomous Concept is notable
Determine whether or not Retroactive Abortion and Poisoned Apple are notable
Determine whether or not Template:Venomous Concept is notable

--Jax 0677 (talk) 03:27, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nice idea, but of no relevance to this article. It is this article that should prove its notability. It will not inherit notability from other things. The Banner talk 09:58, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:45, 11 March 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, Automatic Strikeout (T • C) 00:30, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Venomous Concept. A standalone article isn't justified but there's no reason this shouldn't be covered in the band article. --Michig (talk) 08:25, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Reply - Thank you Michig! --Jax 0677 (talk) 22:10, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
merge to Venomous Concept as suggested. Frietjes (talk) 15:20, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Venomous Concept; that works. Northamerica1000^(talk) 10:55, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Michig. – SJ + 21:17, 23 March 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. Michig (talk) 07:47, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Harold Saunders[edit]

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

Coming in twelfth place in the 1932 British Chess Championship ain't gonna cut it as far as notability goes. Non-notable. This piece is outta here. Thank you. OGBranniff (talk) 06:21, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. His best tournament results establish notability. Toccata quarta (talk) 14:24, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:46, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:46, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Michaelzeng7 (talk) 00:17, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Response. Under what guidelines or policy does coming in twelfth place in 1932 establish notability? OGBranniff (talk) 05:47, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody is going to fall for that straw man. Maybe we should delete the article on Magnus Carlsen, since he was last at Corus 2007? Toccata quarta (talk) 05:51, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Magnus Carlsen is the subject of substantial coverage in reliable, third-party, editorially checked sources. Even in the last week there has been a slew of coverage of Carlsen because of the 2013 Candidates tournament in London. That is why he is notable. Now, if there were no coverage of Carlsen, and his crowning accomplishment was coming in last in 2007, then he'd be in the same deletable boat as the subject of this AFD. Thank you. OGBranniff (talk) 05:54, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Surely you appreciate that "results" is a plural form a noun? Toccata quarta (talk) 06:15, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Surely you appreciate that you have failed to cite neither any policy nor any guideline to support your claim that coming in 4th place at Scarborough "establish[es] notability." Thank you. OGBranniff (talk) 06:30, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Shared first in a tournament with Savielly Tartakower is an accomplishment. Certainly not the most important chess biography, but that is not a reason to delete. The article may be improved in the future if we don't delete it, but it's satisfactory now. We can't build a good encyclopedia by deleting all the minor articles. Quale (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 08:13, March 16, 2013 (UTC)
Comment. Yes but under what policy or guideline is that accomplishment "notable" per Wikipedia? OGBranniff (talk) 08:17, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Applying policy and guidelines requires judgment. I think my judgment about Wikipedia notability is better than yours. I have a few years more experience here than you do, which I think helps. But everyone has the opportunity to be heard, and other participants to this discussion and the closer can weigh our respective arguments and decide for themselves. Quale (talk) 08:28, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment. Well, that is true, I agree. Thank you. OGBranniff (talk) 08:34, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I agree with OGBranniff. It's one thing to claim that someone is notable or accomplished, but where is the significant in-depth coverage in reliable sources? If it's out there somewhere, let's see it. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 21:11, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Based a little on judgement of the results, because finishing in shared first with Tartakower (one of the top players of this age) in Scarborough, clearly establishes Saunders as a player who could reckon with the World elite at the time. In fact, Saunders seemingly defeated Tartakower in the game between them [20]. The problem with players whose accomplishments were in the 1920s and 1930s is that their merits are not always freely available on the internet, but there is cause to believe that the coverage is there. For example, British Chess Magazine has a 1950 obituary on Saunders in volume 70, unfortunately I can only see snippets of it using Google Books, but those snippets do confirm that he was one of the strongest players in London. Sjakkalle (Check!) 12:55, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Saunders has an entry on page 373 of Gaige's book Chess Personalia. To me, this confers automatic notability as the author clearly states in the Introduction to his scholarly work that the following chess personalities represent " ... the great and the near-great in the world of chess.". Saunders' entry gives, in turn, a list of reliable sources that Gaige has used to establish the facts, for example, BCM (British Chess Magazine) 1950. p.285. - presumably the tribute or obituary referred to by User:Sjakkalle. Brittle heaven (talk) 10:44, 18 March 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 Van Canto. J04n(talk page) 10:12, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Tribe of Force[edit]

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

Non-notable album, fails WP:NALBUM. It has 3 refs:

[21] a paragraph on a reviews site
[22] a broken link to a record label website
[23] a paragraph on Allmusic.com

This falls a long way short of the notability test of substantial coverage in reliable sources. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:17, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:15, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:10, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (or redirect to van Canto at a minimum) - Merging too many album articles losslessly (track listings and personnel included) into the ensemble article would be messy. The number of albums with full track listings and album info to be merged into a musical ensemble or artist page was discussed here. Are we going to now start a mass deletion campaign of all non-notable albums? --Jax 0677 (talk) 16:49, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- When a topic is not notable, we don't need to aim for a lossless merge; we can summarise. If the topic is not notable, it does not require that much detail, and should not be covered in that much detail.
  In any case, I note that Jax0677 does not make any claim that the topic is notable, let alone evidence that it is notable. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:09, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Reply - Here it says "Users have expressed interest in keeping the tracklists somewhere in Wikipedia". Implied in this is keeping the information about the album, which is what an encyclopedia should do. --Jax 0677 (talk) 22:49, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Reply. Jax, was that a sneaky attempt at misrepresenting the result of the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Notability (music)#Merging_of_non-notable_albums, or did you just not bother to read the closing statement?
Whichever it it was, Jax has quoted from the closing admin's summary of the discussion rather than from the conclusion, which rejected any blanket approval of that point: "that consensus is to Keep current wording and merge or redirect album articles that only contain an infobox and a tracklist. Given the comments above, such merges should be done in compliance with current policies and guidelines, and when such information is considered notable (or encyclopedic) enough to be included". --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:30, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Reply - Do I recall you saying "If an article would be overwhelmed by listing all the tracks on non-notable albums, the solution is simple: don't list all the tracks"? My point is that neither the track listings nor the pertinent details should not go away, even if the album articles do get merged into the ensemble article. IMHO, if the artist is notable, the song names, times and participants in their albums can be listed somewhere on Wikipedia. WP is WP:NOTCENSORED, therefore the track listings should not be excluded from an artist or ensemble page so long as the artist is considered notable. The track listings and the album titles are information about the artist. Perhaps an AfD should be filed against van Canto? --Jax 0677 (talk) 00:05, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Stop being silly. There is no question of censorship, just of editorial commonsense. If the material overwhelms an article, some of it may be omitted; but the fact that some editors want to include material which overloads an article is no grounds for creating another article on a non-notable topic. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:38, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Reply - If the article has room, include the track listing in the article. If not, do a size split. The reason that Central Station (Phoenix) has its own article is because the Metro Light Rail (Phoenix) article would otherwise be too large. This is why WP:NALBUMS says "space permitting". --Jax 0677 (talk) 02:58, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Reply. Wikipedia:Splitting specifically says that notability needs to be considered when splitting a topic. An album does not become notable just because some editors ignore WP:NOTINDISCRIMINATE, and are determined to include a full track listing of every album. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:34, 10 March 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, Steven Zhang ^{Help resolve disputes!} 00:17, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Van Canto. None of the band's album articles seem to have enough content to make separate articles necessary, and merging them all to the band article would make sense. The personnel is basically the same across the albums - any members coming or going could be mentioned in the prose, and I wouldn't see the track lengths as essential information to merge.--Michig (talk) 07:07, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Reply - Like No Justice, the albums absolutely should be merged losslessly, track lengths included. --Jax 0677 (talk) 22:26, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
merge with Van Canto. Frietjes (talk) 15:23, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Jax. – SJ + 21:17, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with van Canto, as with Hero (van Canto album). Victão Lopes ^{I hear you...} 03:29, 25 March 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.