< 1 March	3 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 keep. (non-admin closure) TBrandley ^{(what's up)} 00:34, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Crocoduck[edit]

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

Minor neologism as part of evolution/creationism debate, barely worth a mention in that context. PROD was removed without comment from an IP user Thargor Orlando (talk) 23:24, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:39, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:39, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The term is documented by reliable sources as being used by both sides of the creationism discussion to make their points. "Minor neologism" or not, it is notable. TechBear | Talk | Contributions 01:32, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep While the Crocoduck term may have started out exactly as nom stated, it has received a wide range of notable coverage within the creationism/evolution debate. -- ShinmaWa^(talk) 20:11, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Major hits in Google; Google books even shows a mention by pro-evolution book The Greatest Show on Earth: The Evidence for Evolution by Dawkins. The only other alternative would be to merge into Creationism or Creation science article. --Noleander (talk) 19:44, 6 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 basketball players who have scored 100 points in a single game. J04n(talk page) 14:05, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Tigran Grigorian[edit]

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

Per WP:BIO1E, this is a biography of a person known for one event, scoring 100 points in a basketball game. Neither the event nor the person has received WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE. A Google News search shows a majority of hits around the event in February 2003, with only a trivial mention in 2010 when another basketball player scored 100. The subject is already a list entry in List of basketball players who have scored 100 points in a single game. At best, this can be a redirect to the list tagged with ((R to list entry)). This single event is more suitable to be preserved at sister project Wikinews. —Bagumba (talk) 22:45, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. —Bagumba (talk) 22:49, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Classic example of person whose notability is based entirely on a single event per WP:BIO1E. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 22:59, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep He currently holds the record in California. Proudbolsahye (talk) 23:40, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

— Note to closing admin: Proudbolsahye (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this XfD. —Bagumba (talk) 23:52, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, that does not meet WP:NBASKETBALL, nor does significant coverage exist to meet WP:GNG either. Without coverage, the problem is that not much else encyclopedic can be written about him outside of what is essentially a news article.—Bagumba (talk) 23:56, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:33, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:33, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Per WP:ANYBIO: The person has made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in his or her specific field. Tigran Grigorian definitely follows under the historical record category as the first person in California to score more than 100 points a game in high school basketball. Proudbolsahye (talk) 03:13, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

With all due respect, being one of several Americans to score 100 or more points in a high school basketball game in California is not necessarily "a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in his or her specific field." Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 03:20, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: He is not only one of the several Americans that did so...but the only Californian. Proudbolsahye (talk) 03:23, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that the footnote at WP:ANYBIO says, "Generally, a person who is 'part of the enduring historical record' will have been written about, in depth, independently in multiple history books on that field, by historians." Please identify the in-depth coverage in multiple history books.—Bagumba (talk) 07:13, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of basketball players who have scored 100 points in a single game; subject has received coverage for one event, therefore the subject of this AfD clearly falls under WP:BLP1E and per BLP1E, a redirect is the common practice to the event. As the event itself is not individually notable, but the category is and a list exists for that category, redirect to the list. If the individual receives significant coverage for more than this single event, then the article can be recreated in the future; until then it is too soon for the subject of this AfD to have an article IMHO.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 15:01, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per ONEEVENT. The fact that he has been the only Californian to do this means absolutely nothing in terms of making it more notable. Jrcla2 (talk) 01:39, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Grigorian not only holds title to the most points scored in a high school basketball game, but he broke the record. As you well know, California in itself is notable and breaking a high school basketball record is no small feat. Especially when its record breaking. Proudbolsahye (talk) 10:05, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Grigorian not only holds title to the most points scored in a high school basketball game" – no, Danny Heater holds that record. "California in itself is notable" – irrelevant. "breaking a high school basketball record is no small feat." – debatable, that depends on the record in question. Granted, this particular one is a tough record to break, but state-level high school sports record holders are not notable by any criteria except whether that person passes general notability guidelines that extend beyond one event. This player does not, and is therefore non-notable. Jrcla2 (talk) 15:53, 8 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) 14:05, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hideki Kasai[edit]

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

This article is a generic stub, generated by a bot in 2007. It makes no specific claim to notability; it appears that similar stubs were created for every photographer listed in 328 Outstanding Japanese Photographers, all with the format "Name (years) is a renowned Japanese photographer" (compare the nominated article with Gen Ōtsuka, for example). Tokyo Metropolitan Museum of Photography states that the sole criteria for inclusion in the book was to have a single photograph in the museum's permanent collection at the time the book was published. That doesn't seem to meet WP:CREATIVE.

If this nomination passes, I'll put up a group nomination for the 182 other generated stubs that have been untouched since creation.

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. Cckerberos (talk) 23:01, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Nom. Maybe Quadell's Polbot, which created the articles in the first place, can be used to take out the other non-notable one-liner articles. That bot is presently inactive (thank goodness) and yet can apparently still be used for teejus tasks. – PAINE ELLSWORTH ^CLIMAX! 23:19, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

PS. Wonder how many others like this has that bot created?

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:31, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:31, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, without in any way suggesting that there'd be anything wrong in an attempt by a thinking human to write a decent article about Hideki Kasai (葛西秀樹 (although first looks suggest that Kasai is indeed one of the obscurer people in this list). ¶ Shortly after the generation of these hundreds of non-articles, I commented (and I think partly explained), here. I'll add a bit to that. For those who don't have a copy of the book 『日本写真家辞典』 (which despite being in Japanese only, also has an English title, 328 Outstanding Japanese Photographers), I'll comment a bit on that. It's a little encyclopedia of Japanese photographers, published in 2000 and edited (though not published) by the Tokyo Metropolitan Museum of Photography. Except for a tiny number of clearly marked exceptions, every person included had at least one photo in the museum's permanent collection. However, there's no indication of what the holding is -- one photo, two hundred? Half or more of the photographers should be more or less familiar names to anyone seriously interested in Japanese photography. Most of the rest should produce the reaction, "Oh, uh, yes." But a few do seem very obscure. It's easy to come up with the names of noteworthy photographers whose omission from the book seems odd: Akira Toriyama, Seiji Kurata, Sakae Tamura, Sakae Tamura. And anyone can come up with Japanese photographers whose omission isn't so very odd but who seem at least as noteworthy as some of the obscurer people in the book. Still, the book remains useful and indeed unchallenged. ¶ Cckerberos writes: If this nomination passes, I'll put up a group nomination for the 182 other generated stubs that have been untouched since creation. I believe that they've all been touched. I touched most, perhaps all, myself. So let's slightly rephrase that: the [however many] other generated stubs that haven't been significally developed since creation. This would involve the deletion of a hundred or more substubs -- "stubs" is too generous -- on people who definitely merit articles. (Gen Ōtsuka [大束元], mentioned above, is definitely one of these. There's not much about him in English, and when his name does appear it's sometimes written as "Otsuka" or "Ohtsuka". But here's a terse example.) So would it be a pity if substubs on people like Ōtsuka were deleted? I don't think so. In their current state, they're useless; and anyone wanting to write a decent article could do so from scratch. ¶ ~~Gene93k~~ Paine Ellsworth asks Wonder how many others like this has that bot created? List of Wikipedians by article count says that it has created 40,046 articles. Though I've no reason to think that any article mass-produced by a bot could be worthwhile, I'll concede that it could have been lucky 46 times. So: forty thousand crap non-articles? -- Hoary (talk) 13:53, 3 March 2013 (UTC) ..... Error fixed 01:00, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Gene93k asks Wonder how many others like this has that bot created? 'Twern't Gene, 'twere me who asked that in a postscript, and

Thank you for the 40k+ figure, Hoary! This would involve the deletion of a hundred or more substubs -- "stubs" is too generous -- on people who definitely merit articles. Is that really what you meant to say? or the opposite? I am so confused!>) (You were being sarcastic, weren't you. Weren't you?)>( – PAINE ELLSWORTH ^CLIMAX! 21:22, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the mistaken attribution, now fixed. ¶ I don't know where the confusion comes from. CCkerberos writes of 182 other generated stubs that have been untouched since creation. I know what he/she is referring to. These hardly merit the description "stubs"; I call them "substubs". They have been touched since creation (e.g. by me), but they haven't been significantly developed. I'm not going to count them, but I find the number 182 quite credible. However many there are of them, I'm sure that at least two thirds of them are about people who indisputably merit articles here. (As I've said, Gen Ōtsuka is one of these.) If there are indeed 182 substubs, then there will be over a hundred for people who indisputably merit articles. I'm happy to see these substubs deleted. Of course I'd be a lot happier if a hundred or more real articles were to spring up, but deletion of uninformative substubs should do nothing to inhibit later creation of articles actually worth reading about the same people. ¶ Here's a bonus for you. I don't worry so much about WP:CREATIVE. (After all, it's not a policy.) If somebody doesn't make the grade but nevertheless a short, informative, well-sourced, non-promotional article about her can be provided, I'm happy to see its inclusion. Once, a long time ago, and with this in mind, I decided that as a little challenge I'd find the person who seemed the least significant among the 328, and turn the substub about him or her into a decent little article. I did just that. Nobody objected, then or later. -- Hoary (talk) 01:00, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, to be fair, as Hoary mentions, the nominated article and others mentioned weren't literally untouched. All of them have had their name orders switched (by Hoary, I believe) to match the MoS, and a few have had orphan tags and the like added to them. I perhaps should have said something along the lines of "the 182 other generated stubs haven't had a sentence added to their article text since creation."
The flip side of that, of course, is that 145 of the stubs generated by the bot have been improved to at least some extent (many by Hoary). For example, the article on Ken Domon started as one of these "substubs".
I generally take a very inclusionist approach to Wikipedia, so I agree and wouldn't have made the nom if there had actually been anything in the articles, nevermind WP:CREATIVE. But this being AfD, I figured a reference to notability guidelines was probably a good idea. Cckerberos (talk) 02:39, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't take issue with any of that. (NB the first impression you might get from the current article on Ken Domon, that it's long and therefore substantial, quickly dissipates when you see how much of it is merely list, list, list. Ditto for many, probably most, of my expansions of these substubs.) I've got two regrets: that nobody turned circa 182 non-articles into articles (well, no surprise there), and that I didn't have the nerve in 2007 to propose what Cckerberos is proposing now. -- Hoary (talk) 03:23, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. It's not just Polbot that's to blame for these non-articles. Consider Marta Hoepffner. The reader is told (on 27 April 2012): (i) Marta Hoepffner (1912 - 2000) was a German artist and photographer. and (ii) This article may be expanded with text translated from the corresponding article in the Polish Wikipedia. Here's what was then the current version of the Polish article. It has a precisely composed bibliography (probably enough to have generated the article, and more), but no inline references. So translating chunks of it would either lead to an unsourced article or require an unthinking copy of the bibliography. I often see this kind of non-article; they're merely a waste of other people's time, and an annoyance to would-be readers. (If somebody really wanted an article on Hoepffner, nothing's stopping him from writing a message to WikiProject Poland saying "pl:Marta Hoepffner looks interesting; could I persuade anyone here produce an English equivalent?") -- Hoary (talk) 00:08, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. First, as for the nominated article itself, I cannot find sufficient RS in Japanese to warrant an independent article. As for the other articles created by this bot, I am afraid I am cautious on these matters and would hesitate to support a mass deletion. As already noted, some may actually have merit. Just because an article remains a stub and has not been edited since creation does not mean it is on a non-notable subject (that has never been a criterion for deletion). This is especially the case with non-English language subjects like Japan. (I know plenty of barely edited stubs in Wikipedia on Japanese actors who are very famous in Japan.) I am afraid I feel that most of these bot-related articles should be judged on a case-by-case basis. Perhaps a small task force can be created for this? Michitaro (talk) 13:51, 9 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 Neville Chamberlain's European Policy#Outbreak of war. --DHeyward (talk) 06:53, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

United Kingdom declaration of war upon Germany (1939)[edit]

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

Would be better off in Wikiquotes. Wikipedia is not for this purpose. Kinkreet^{~♥moshi moshi♥~} 22:05, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Reply: There was a link from this page [1] with no page at the end of it, so I thought it was worth adding this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.101.168.83 (talk) 22:09, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ Redirect. While the article consists mostly of a verbatim reproduction of the speech/declaration, it has potential to be developed beyond the current stubby state with analysis or greater historical context. The verbatim speech may be better off on Wikisource, though. — daranz [ t ] 22:32, 2 March 2013 (UTC) As AJHingston points out below, the topic is already covered at Neville Chamberlain's European Policy#Outbreak of war. A redirect would make sense. — daranz [ t ] 01:23, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There doesn't seem to be an article about the outbreak of WW2 and so this might be a good seed or kernel upon which to base it. For an example of a source detailing the broadcasts of Daladier and Chamberlain and the accompanying negotiations, see Public Opinion and the End of Appeasement in Britain and France. Warden (talk) 23:42, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge This isn't specific enough to be its own article. Maybe put it somewhere like here: Military history of the United Kingdom during World War II. Mrmoustache14 (talk) 23:57, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:41, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:41, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:41, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete While Wikipedia could certainly have an article on this important topic, this article contains no useful content - the quote belongs at Wikiquote, and there's nothing else here. WP:TNT seems in order. Nick-D (talk) 00:59, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A fork of Neville Chamberlain's European Policy (arguably not the best title, but this and much more is contained there). There is much more that can be said on the diplomatic moves leading up to, and resulting, in the British ultimatum and its rejection, but this adds nothing. (The diplomatic correspondence was published on the British side in a White Paper Cmd 6106 in September 1939 and a great deal has been written since, of course). --AJHingston (talk) 01:06, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I should probably add that the quoted speech was not, technically, the declaration of war, it was merely announcing to the public what had occurred. Its nearest comparison is FDR's Infamy Speech which gets its own article as well as another on the US declaration of war itself. Both Chamberlain's and FDR's speeches are equally notable, and there is a case for better and fuller treatment of the whole topic of the outbreak of war in Europe in September 1939, but this is not the way. --AJHingston (talk) 15:39, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Neville Chamberlain's European Policy#Outbreak of war, content is the exact duplicate of part of that section of the article. No need to duplicate content, a redirect appears to be in order.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 16:05, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The topic may be notable, but as things stand, the quote should be moved to wikiquotes, and the one sentence article redirected to something more meaty. If this is expanded, ping me and I'll see if I can revise my vote for keep. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:59, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Trnaswikify the quote, then redirect to Neville Chamberlain's European Policy#Outbreak of war. I doubt that we reeally need the full quote even there. Peterkingiron (talk) 13:22, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: Part of the text is already on Wikisource, at s:War with Germany declared. The text in the article is a bit longer than the WS text. The WS text corresponds to the recording on Commons, which does not contain the speech to the extent that it is given in the article. — daranz [ t ] 01:15, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Is this relevant? Kinkreet^{~♥moshi moshi♥~} 09:13, 8 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. postdlf (talk) 21:39, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

List of cities in Austria over 5,000 population (2001 census)[edit]

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

I think it should be deleted/merged with List of cities and towns in Austria, no reason to have a separate orphaned page for a single census. Mattximus (talk) 21:18, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Completed incomplete nom. — Train2104 (talk • contribs) 21:27, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

~~Comment~~ Merge to List of cities and towns in Austria - there's also a list of cities in Austria 10,000+ and in my opinion a city is a city or it isn't! Without a compelling reason explaining why 5000 is a notable figure, I would think this one is surplus. City populations change over time, making these sort of articles out-of-date. Sionk (talk) 00:29, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm voting to merge. None of these 'cities' are in fact cities. Some are villages. Possibly 5000 is around the size that a community becomes a town? List of cities and towns in Austria is the appropriate place for them. Sionk (talk) 13:42, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Austria-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:47, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:47, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – There's already a column for the 2001 census in List of cities and towns in Austria, no need to duplicate it. –TC N7 JM 15:48, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete in favor of List of cities and towns in Austria, which already lists all cities over 10,000 in population. Unless there is something provably notable about the 5,000 person threshold, there's no reason to duplicate efforts. Even then, I'd prefer to add the cities between 5,000 and 10,000 to the existing list, rather than create a new one. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 13:27, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per above. Mattximus (talk) 23:52, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per above. Kabirat (talk) 14:25, 8 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. also WP:WITHDRAW by the nominator himself last March 3 (non-admin closure) Mediran (t • c) 01:48, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Vandal Kingdom[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Fork of Vandals. A similar fork was deleted at AfD around a year ago. Spinning Spark 21:24, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article does indeed include some content from Vandals, although there is much original content as well. We do already have articles about Visigothic Kingdom, Ostrogothic Kingdom, Kingdom of the Lombards, Kingdom of the Gepids, among others, so i see no problem in having an article on this North African kingdom as well. If the similiarities between these articles are large, the reasonable solution in my view would be to shorten the section about the kingdom in the Vandals article. If you could give me some time, i'd be happy to do the work. Krakkos (talk) 21:56, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

At the moment it covers substantially the same ground as the Vandals article with mostly the same material. Shortening the section in the main article to summary style would certainly be necessary if this article is kept. But it also needs a great deal more information to make it a truly new article. Spinning Spark 22:33, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The Vandal Kingdom was an important political entity in the history of the Mediterranean region. It's definitely an encyclopedic topic and abundantly discussed in WP:RS as a Google Books search will demonstrate. Vandals concerns the ethnic group itself, while the current article is about the political entity established by that group. That seems a significant enough distinction to justify the existence of two articles. I would also add that per WP:GEOLAND "populated, legally-recognized places are, by a very large consensus, considered notable" - and as a significant historical-geographic entity, the Vandal Kingdom should be deemed notable too. As Krakkos already said, more work should be done to reduce duplication and further distinguish the content of the two articles, but this is a WP:SURMOUNTABLE problem which can be solved by editing, not deletion. If necessary, the article could be cut down almost to a Stub by removing duplicated material, but it should not be deleted. --Mike Agricola (talk) 22:41, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep WP:CFORK states "If the content fork was unjustified, the more recent article should be merged back into the main article." Deletion is therefore not appropriate. The issue of splitting the topic of the North African kingdom from a more general article about the people is a matter of ordinary editing. Warden (talk) 23:52, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: it is true that the article as it stands is a content fork, but the topic is in itself worthy of an article. The Vandal Kingdom is not coterminous with the Vandal people, just as Greece is not with the Greeks, Russia with the Russians, etc. When writing articles on the era, one wants to link to a specific state (which included Vandals, Romano-Libyans and Berbers) and not just its dominant people. Constantine ✍ 02:19, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:21, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:21, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Withdraw nomination. Spinning Spark 09:27, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- It may be necessary to prune Vandals, so that the two articles can grow separately. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:03, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This should be done now, or else we should delete this article and let somebody start from scratch at their convenience. Srnec (talk) 04:17, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. If somebody wants to write an article on the Vandal Kingdom, they are welcome to do so, but this is just a history of the Vandals and totally repetitious. I support deletion as long as no real article on the Vandal kingdom exists, especially since this was in fact already deleted once. Srnec (talk) 04:17, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: It seems there are two issues here: the (a) topic itself and (b) the current state of the article. Regarding (a), the Vandal Kingdom was a notable political/geographical entity and is more than deserving of its own Wikipedia article. WP:NOTE is easily satisfied with the numerous WP:RS available. Regarding (b), WP:IMPERFECT states that "Collaborative editing means that incomplete or poorly written first drafts can evolve over time into excellent articles. Even poor articles, if they can be improved, are welcome" (see also WP:POTENTIAL). The article certainly needs cleanup and dedicated editing to add fresh content to distinguish it from Vandals, but deletion is not cleanup (WP:NOTCLEANUP). I would also add that there's no deadline here (WP:NODEADLINE). One step that can be taken to encourage speedier improvements/rewrites is to bring this to the attention of the folks at WP:HISTORY. As a last resort, the duplicated material stemming from the content fork could be deleted and the article cut down a lot (perhaps even to a Stub) to provide a fresh basis on which to build the article. Per POTENTIAL this would be preferable to deletion. --Mike Agricola (talk) 19:41, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. As Cplakidas explains, the subject is a state, and therefore it is deserving of its own article, separate from the article about the people. Everyking (talk) 17:10, 7 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. Sandstein 08:45, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Endogamy in the Spanish monarchy[edit]

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

Unreferenced, inaccurate and indiscriminate genealogical trivia, representing the original research of a single editor using an unreliable on-line genealogical database. Agricolae (talk) 20:54, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Agricolae (talk) 20:57, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. Agricolae (talk) 20:57, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Potential Keep -- the fact that the Hapsburg dynasty, ruling in Spain and Austria were severely interbred was notorious, giving rise to the Hapsburg lip. This probably needs rather more work before it can be considered a decent article, perhaps eliminating monarchs who were not severly inbred. However the concept is not so ridiculous as to warrnat AFD deletion. I am not convinced of the merits of the present name. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:59, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

OK, so here is the problem - They were all significantly inbred, from the 9th century kingdoms of Leon and Navarre (both inexplicably left out) to the Bourbons, so the concept of there being endogamy is valid, but it has never been addressed, except in passing when reporting a single specific marriage, with two exceptions of which I am aware - an article on endogamy (actually using that term in the title) in late 9th - early 10th century Kingdom of Pamplona (which the compiler of these tables has decided not to include), and in the case of the Hapsburgs. That is not to say that there wasn't inbreeding in the kingdom of Leon (10th - 11th centuries, ignored), the autonomous county of Castile (10th - 11th centuries, ignored), the kingdom of Castile (12-16th centuries, ignored) and the kingdom of Navarre (10th - 16th or 17th, ignored), but I am unaware of it being addressed except in passing (e.g. when reporting a marriage to say something like 'Ramiro then married Adosinda, daughter of the Galician count Gutierre Osoriz and his own first cousin', or when it served as pretext for subsequent divorce). That is also not to say the compiler was aware of this body of scholarly work - they simply looked at the on-line Roglo genealogy database (non-WP:RS) and compiled a table by WP:SYNTH. It includes people and relationships completely made up by 'genealogists' (the entire Asturias table is nonsense - of the five endogamous marriages shown, not a single relationship is authentic), and also includes highly speculative and completely irrelevant connections 9 generations back (in the Castile section, the relationship of the wives of Alfonso VI is based on noting more than 'here is an early 10th century person named Raymond and he named his son Bernard and in the mid-9th century there is a person named Raymond who named his son Bernard, so the second Raymond was probably grandson of the first' - Alfonso and his wives in the late 11th century would have been completely unaware, while the pope tried to force Alfonso to divorce his second wife for being too closely related to his first, a much more relevant connection). I do not think that there exists sources to do a comprehensive article on the subject as a whole that is consistent with Wikipedia policy on sourcing. There could certainly be an article on the inbreeding among the Hapsburgs (which need not be limited to Spain), and maybe one on the inbreeding in early Navarre (although one obscure article in French does not necessarily establish notability for WP.en), but bridging the two with 600 years of unreliable arbitrary original research just doesn't cut it. What we have here is just an exercise in 'look what I found in the database'. Agricolae (talk) 16:23, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Agricolae's comment that "I do not think that there exists sources to do a comprehensive article on the subject as a whole", meaning on the subject of the Spanish monarchies. An article on Habsburg endogamy would, if properly done, be acceptable. And I think the article you are referring to is "Endogamia en la dinastía regia de Pamplona (siglos IX–XI)" by Cañada Palacio, which is in Spanish, not French. Srnec (talk) 04:11, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but absolutely not! I see that I got the two confused/combined in my mind - the one you mention (available here [2]) uses the term endogamy, but I was actually thinking of "Consanguinity et Alliances Dynastiques en Espagne au Haut Moyen Age: La Politique Matrimoniale de la Reinne Tota de Navarre" by Thierry Stasser (which, obviously, doesn't use 'endogamy' but is in French). So, we have two scholarly articles on royal Iberian endogamy, other than the Hapsburgs, and they both deal with the same minor kingdom (Pamplona/Navarre, a kingdom not even included in the current page), during the same time period (9th-10th in one, 9th-11th century in the other), and nothing on the 500 years in between, nor any of the other kingdoms (Leon, Castile, Aragon). Agricolae (talk) 05:25, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Historically inaccurate, as mentioned by Agricolae above. Further, it is not an article in the style of Endogamy in the British monarchy but is a piece of original synthesis in list format. I am skeptical that such topics are appropriate for WP articles; a great deal of original synthesis is needed, and sources directly discussing the articles' subjects are rare. dci | TALK 02:17, 9 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 Doolittle Raid#List of the participating crewmen. (non-admin closure) Mediran (t • c) 01:45, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas C. Griffin[edit]

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

Redirect. This article was originally created as a redirect to Doolittle Raid#List of the participating crewmen, however an editor who has previously created multiple articles on Doolittle Raiders that have since been redirected back to the main list - [3], [4] - expanded it to a full article. However, like the others previously redirected, Griffin is not notable enough for a standalone article; outside of the one event he fails to reach the levels of notability for such, failing WP:SOLDIER and WP:GNG. As he is only notable for the Doolittle Raid, the page should be restored to the redirect; I would simply have done so, but the creator's history is to continually revert attempts to do so with the label of vandalism ([5], [6]) so a full discussion is likely needed. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 20:01, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 20:03, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect - clearly fails to meet notability for a stand-alone article. - Ahunt (talk) 20:08, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 20:25, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per above. Yuffo (talk) 20:32, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not really notable. MilborneOne (talk) 20:51, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per above. EricSerge (talk) 20:57, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - Doesn't appear to have notability outside of the raid. Zappa O Mati 21:26, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Doolittle Raid#List of the participating crewmen, subject has received significant coverage from multiple non-primary reliable sources however most were after the individuals death, therefore WP:NOTMEMORIAL applies. All the reliable sources not that the subject of this AfD is notable for participating in the Doolittle Raid, therefore the subject is notable for participating in an WP:EVENT, and therefore falls under WP:BIO1E; thus as per BIO1E the Biography article should redirect to the event article. Although the subject lived more than 70 years after the event, the subject of the AfD is not notable for anything outside of the event, and did not receive significant coverage between the event and his death. This is not to disparage the honorable service of the subject, who we should all honor; however, Wikipedia does not allow for each servicemember who has received significant coverage to have their own article. As we have seen multiple times that is not enough to establish notability alone.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 01:34, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:18, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect as above. Yet another Doolittle Raid participant who is not notable in his own right. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:47, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Bushranger and RightCow. — -dainomite 23:35, 5 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. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:45, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Radio Catt[edit]

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

A 6 months old student radio that fails WP:GNG (just a trivial mention and a bunch of primary/unreliable sources). Article created by a single-purpose account. WP:TOOSOON applies here. Prod removed by an IP. Cavarrone (talk) 19:49, 2 March 2013 (UTC) Cavarrone (talk) 19:50, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. Cavarrone (talk) 19:59, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. Cavarrone (talk) 20:03, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

favor of maintaining the page because radio catt is an important Italian radio quoted by national newspapers such as Corriere della Sera and working with international organizations such as UNICEF. The radio was not created 6 months ago (it's wrong!).--79.1.245.6 (talk) 20:14, 2 March 2013 (UTC)— 79.1.245.6 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

According the cited article in Corriere della Sera the college radio first aired last September [7]. And a mention in an article about Italian campus radios, in which Radio Catt is cited together with other non notable radios such as Radio Liuc, youCampus, Poli.Radio and Rbg Bergamo, is not enough to satisfy WP:GNG and WP:ORG. Cavarrone (talk) 21:24, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think the minimum criteria are met for RadioCatt because it's of national importance (it's not local radio). radio catt submit the same criteria of all the radio's page of en.wiki (radioeco.it ecc..ecc). P. S. wikipedia is good.....but is no good "to operate double standards"--79.1.245.6 (talk) 21:51, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:16, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Just done a quick search of hits on Yahoo News and nothing, but being open to the possibility that I might of missed something, here is the link; http://au.news.search.yahoo.com/search;_ylt=A0oGkmAIGTNR6lsAyYQL5gt.?p=Radio+Catt&fr=&fr2=piv-web Whitewater111 (talk) 09:44, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Kepp the website that you used to look up news is Australian! there were no reports of even famous Italian radio. Try to write radiocatt on google news ... there are some results. P.S. the IP other messages are mine.--Jenniferstaff (talk) 16:40, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
keep i think the minimal criteria r respected...why not?--Ernestfloor (talk) 09:13, 5 March 2013 (UTC)— Ernestfloor (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Comment Jenniferstaff and Ernestfloor are surely meatpuppet (probably even sockuppets) on it.wiki we experienced a similar spamming coming from that university with a bunch of puppets and even trolling. Trolling also came from a Telecom Italia ip, such as the one commenting above. --Vituzzu (talk) 10:47, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No independent sources discuss the station in an meaningful way. --Noleander (talk) 04:40, 7 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) 13:58, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Infanta Iñiga of Asturias[edit]

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

This is all made up - the individual is entirely unknown to history, and represents some family's attempt to connect their lineage to the ancient kings via outright invention. There are no reliable sources, nor could there ever be. Agricolae (talk) 19:13, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete – Nothing in this article is true. If it is, there are no reliable sources to prove it. –TC N7 JM 19:19, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Agricolae (talk) 19:24, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Agricolae (talk) 19:24, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. Agricolae (talk) 19:26, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Rather than pack this AfD page with a detailed criticism of the current text, I have placed such a criticism on the article's Talk page. Agricolae (talk) 20:01, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete - Nothing more than false info. I'm rather surprised this page lasted for almost 4 years without any comment. Zappa O Mati 03:18, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- even if it were all true, I do not think it would make her notable. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:00, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, but can we preserve the talk page? (This article only survived because nothing linked to it.) Srnec (talk) 04:13, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Don't talk pages of deleted pages qualify for WP:CSD#G8? –TC N7 JM 04:17, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As I understand it, that's right - a Talk without a mainspace page is toast. A similar entry can always be made on Pelayo's Talk page refuting the existence of this daughter if it is deemed worth preserving. Agricolae (talk) 05:40, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think Agricolae's explanation on the talk page should remain somewhere in case this page is ever created again, or even just to tip off the unsuspecting amateur who's researching this stuff online. Srnec (talk) 14:53, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Possible delete - This was quite some time ago so any existing evidence is probably archived or no longer existing. A Google Books search provided this 1752 book citing a "Doña Iñiga" marrying but to an Iñigo Arifta and this with other similar circumstances. Aside from that, there doesn't appear to be much information about this person or anything to improve or keep the article even a little bit. SwisterTwister talk 01:12, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Neither of the citations you point to have the slightest thing to do with the 'person' in question. The first reports the marriage of the Basque kinglet Iñigo Arista (d. 850/1) to Iñiga (alt. form Onneca). This is 1) 150 years after the time period in question, 2) in a different region and cultural context (the Basque principality of Pamplona, not the Visigoth principality of Asturias), and 3) based on a collection of charters of dubious authenticity (a different collection of charters includes one that instead names the wife of Iñigo as Toda, but it too is doubtful). The second book is describing events in the kingdom of Leon (the successor state to the kingdom of Asturias) during the reign of Bermudo II (d. 998), so two and a half centuries later than Pelayo. Agricolae (talk) 02:11, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I knew they weren't the same person, I guess I should have clarified that I found nothing relevant (though the article doesn't provide much info itself to help search). Regarding your nomination comment, where does it exactly say this is an attempt of a family tree? SwisterTwister talk 04:25, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't say this is the case, but from the claim being made and the way it is being expressed, it is obvious that is what this is. Someone decided that the documented pedigree of the Tagle family wasn't good enough and started to get creative. This account falls within a broad pattern seen in medieval genealogy, and there are numerous instances of invented additional children (usually either a daughter or an illegitimate son) of a revered king that have cropped up over the centuries. You can see such inventions all across Europe, and they all have a similar pattern to them. I was just recognizing that pattern for what it was. It is one of the things that provides a constant headache to scholarly medieval genealogy - all of these old family foundation legends that they have to keep refuting, (keep refuting because the families in question do not want their sacred origin legends questioned and so play 'I didn't hear that'. This is not the only one on Wikipedia, but it is one of the more obviously false of them for all the reasons I gave on the Talk page. Agricolae (talk) 05:48, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Creative? Yes. Verifiable, or even true? Doubtful. dci | TALK 01:45, 9 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. Like JamesBWatson, I went through all of the references in the article (if they were online, which most were), and there does not appear to be any significant coverage of Legg in reliable, secondary sources. Bbb23 (talk) 00:29, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Phil Legg[edit]

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

This was created at User:Flora85 by that SPA who edited only on 1 and 2 Feb 2010. It remained untouched for a year and a half until another SPA, Bill Price - William (talk) appeared, and edited it over 11 days in late September/early October 2011. It was nominated for deletion at MfD, and was heading for deletion until Bill Price - William stated that he had further sources to add to the page. Following that, the page was kept to allow him a chance to develop it; but he never edited the page again, nor made any further edits to Wikipedia at all.

The page was recently brought to Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Flora85 (2nd nomination) as a WP:FAKEARTICLE, but the conclusion of the discussion was that it was good enough to deserve consideration as an article. I have therefore moved it to the mainspace and bring it here for the community to consider. Procedural nomination: I am neutral. On the plus side, he seems to have a considerable record, he is mentioned in many existing articles, the tone is not unduly promotional, and there are many refs; on the minus side, there is reason to suppose autobiography, or at best COI (which is not a reason for deletion, but is a reason for looking hard at notability), many of the refs are mere list mentions and it is not clear there is enough depth of independent coverage to establish notability. JohnCD (talk) 18:22, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. JohnCD (talk) 18:38, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - yes, a clear and neutral nomination. It isn't easy to say what to do with this one. It does indeed look as if Bill Price - William had a close connection with Phil Legg, and it's certainly a pity that nobody has added to the article since BP-W created it. Neither of those are definite deletion reasons; the coverage looks thin; the matter would be decided by two or three decently detailed sources, or by definitive failure to find any such. Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:47, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The cobbled-together nature of this article reveals what Google News and Books confirm as well: this person is a minor player in a bunch of fields. He played guitar somewhere, produced a few tracks, had a nightclub, etc--none of these things individually guarantee notability and I don't believe they do so in aggregate, since none of the sources I found discuss the person at all, they just mention him. Drmies (talk) 21:47, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Borderline notable, swinging to keep due to the decent number of incoming links justifiable. This person would not be notable enough for a biography based on any one of his achievements, but given the range if them, it is appropriate to summarise and cross-reference. The authors do appear to have a COI, but they didn't actively hide it, nor did they write promotion. The subject already has enough promotion from his own web page that there is no point in using Wikipedia to promote his current commercial interests. The references include at least one biographical piece. There are no WP:BLP concerns of negative or unsourced material. A more professional photograph would be nice. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:53, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:14, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:14, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Most of the references don't even mention Phil Legg; most of those that do mention him make only passing mention of him, some of them doing no more than including his name in a credit list; many of them are clearly not independent sources; many of them are links to a download site, of no value at all as references. Not a single one of them could, by any stretch of the imagination, be described as substantial coverage in a reliable independent source. Google search has produced a fair number of unreliable and/or non-independent sources, but nothing better than the references in the article. JamesBWatson (talk) 12:09, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - was hoping to find sources but agree this is too thin to survive really. Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:41, 8 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 Speedied A7. Peridon (talk) 18:33, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Le Panique[edit]

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

Fails WP:BAND, is unreferenced. –TC N7 JM 17:23, 2 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. No rationale for deletion was given and no opinions have been offered one way or the other. J04n(talk page) 18:19, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ch. Akhtar Ali Karnana[edit]

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

Assassin! No, Captain Assassin! ^{( T - C - G )} 16:25, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Captain Assassin, you need to state a rationale for bringing this to AfD? (That said, this article clearly has issues, which I have flagged.) AllyD (talk) 17:24, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:13, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:13, 3 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) 13:58, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Extreme Secure Layer[edit]

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

overly promotional and no indication this software is remotely notable, sources given do not actually mention the software Jac16888 ^Talk 15:35, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I could not find any independent sources discussing this topic in particular; the references in the article are mostly about cookies in general. It seems to fail general notability guidelines. The article itself is relentlessly promotional. --Mark viking (talk) 16:01, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:10, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - references provided are insufficient to establish notability of this software; created by an SPA as likely promotional. Dialectric (talk) 02:46, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Google searches give a lot primary sources, and not much else. The article itself doesn't make a good case for asserting notability. — daranz [ t ] 19:43, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: A related AFD is going at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Suleman Malik - the apparent creator of this technology. Both articles are authored by the same single-purpose account (definitely WP:AUTOBIO). So far the consensus is to salt it, because it's very non-notable and is repeatedly posted to Wikipedia. Alan^(E) 05:30, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Poor sources. Non-notable. Alan^(E) 05:30, 5 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 URL shorteners#Notable URL shortening services. Mark Arsten (talk) 13:59, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

List of URL shorteners[edit]

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

This article aims to list all URL shorteners. However, it's financially and technically trivial for anyone to set up their own URL shortening service using freely available software. This list isn't comprehensive but already contains nearly 400 entries, only two of which have been shown to be notable. The Manual of Style's list selection criteria makes it clear that "if a complete list would include hundreds of entries, then you should use the notability standard to provide focus to the list." We already have a list of notable URL shorteners at URL shortening#Notable URL shortening services; I suggest that List of URL shorteners be deleted and redirected to the existing list. (See also WP:NOTDIR and WP:LINKFARM.) Psychonaut (talk) 15:22, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:09, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:09, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to URL shorteners#Notable URL shortening services for anyone who wants a list. Long lists of non-notable products/websites without any reliable independent coverage don't belong on Wikipedia. There is some coverage comparing URL shorteners[8] but not much in reliable sources: if people were regularly reviewing URL shortening services, there might be case for a shorter list, but I can't see much in the way of reviews. --Colapeninsula (talk) 11:03, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, allowing a redirect as above. This is original research and a WP:LINKFARM to boot. Guy (Help!) 15:16, 7 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 Windows Media Player. As per the opinion of all but two contributors, who don't make a policy-based argument for their preference of keeping the article. Sandstein 08:54, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Media Player (Microsoft)[edit]

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

Hi. This article is not notable, i.e. does not have what general notability guideline says an independent article should have. Although a merge with Windows Media Player may solve its problem, history shows that has once been merged but its merger is reverted. Codename Lisa (talk) 15:15, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Codename Lisa (talk) 15:21, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: It seems reasonably probable to me that enough WP:RS exist to meet WP:GNG. Media Player received significant coverage back when Windows 3.1 was current. Many of the best sources describing this software would be found in books and magazines published in the early to mid 90s. I found multiple results by searching for "Media Player" in Google Books (and narrowing the search to include only results published between 1990 and 1995 to weed out the much more numerous hits for the later Windows Media Player): [9] Unfortunately, few results aside from InfoWorld appear to be accessible in any form other than "snippet view". But some of these "snippet view" results could be excellent WP:RS. For example, based upon what I can glean from the Google Books "snippet view" of Peter Norton's user's guide to Windows 3.1 (1993), the book devotes a chapter to Media Player. [10]. I don't have time right now to dig more deeply to try to locate some more accessible sources, but I'm thinking it probably could be done, or perhaps someone has a stack of Windows 3.1 era books lying around. However, the main question in my mind is whether Windows Media Player should be considered the direct descendant of Media Player (i.e. Windows Media Player builds upon the existing Media Player codebase and hence Media Player is merely an early version of Windows Media Player)? Or are the two programs completely separate, albeit performing a similar function? If the former, I'd be inclined to vote for a merge to Windows Media Player, but if the latter (and someone can track down some of the sources hinted at in Google Books), I'd be inclined to vote "Keep"). --Mike Agricola (talk) 19:25, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. As for your last concern, I believe Media Player is the old name of the product and it was later renamed "Windows Media Player". That aside, their functionality is for the most part the same. So, I think it has full merit for merge. But the reason I dropped this line and came to AfD was due to my perceived lack of notability. I couldn't tell whether the snippet view sources contained passing mentions or more than that. In two cases in the past, I also discovered that the community held a lower standard of notability than I did. So, I went by all I had: Proposing it here would tell me whether I was right or wrong. Let's see with which of us others agree. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 22:01, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, this piece of software is included with every Microsoft Windows computer. Yuffo (talk) 20:33, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. That is true but there is no policy saying Windows components can skip notability check because they are Windows components. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 22:01, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Windows Media Player. I'm inclusionist... Nixdorf (talk) 09:29, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Windows Media Player. After looking at the release histories, I became convinced that Codename Lisa's statement that "Media Player is the old name of the product" is correct. According to the WP articles, Media Player 5.0 was released in 1999 and Windows Media Player 6.4 was the earliest release of that program, also in 1999. It does appear that Microsoft simply prefixed "Windows" to the product line and maintained a release history continuity in its version numbers. The various releases of Media Player are just earlier versions of Windows Media Player, and as such, a merge is fully warranted. --Mike Agricola (talk) 15:52, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. Mike is correct, although it's also worth noting that many people continued to use the classic "Media Player" for several years after that to avoid adopting WMP. a13ean (talk) 18:19, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep Wrong forum, as this is not "Articles for Merger". The issue has to do with notability, not deletion, so should go to either the talk page or maybe the notability noticeboard. Unscintillating (talk) 21:31, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: This article is not nominated for merge; in fact, a merger is explicitly opposed in nomination. However, WP:AFD#Top and WP:CLOSEAFD allow merger to be discussed as an alternative to deletion. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 22:13, 9 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 United States v. Olofson. Clear consensus. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 09:17, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

David Olofson[edit]

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

Basically a BLP1E with less than stellar sourcing. The sources that are good are less about Olofson and more about the event, the other sources aren't really good enough to sustain the page. Thargor Orlando (talk) 14:47, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Seems like a straightforward WP:BLP1E, the sources definitely "cover the person only in the context of a single event" and the "person otherwise remains, and is likely to remain, a low-profile individual". --Cerebellum (talk) 15:14, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per the IP and RightCowLeftCoast. --Cerebellum (talk) 04:00, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to United States v. Olofson. I agree David Olofson does not merit an article but the court case was arguably notable. It was the subject of appellate review giving the decision (see United States v. Olofson, No. 08-2294) precedental status in the 7th US Circuit. Olofson's case was also a minor cause célèbre in conservative media and among gun rights advocates. 71.35.126.96 (talk) 08:10, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Redirect to United States v. Olofson; the subject has received significant coverage from non-primary reliable sources, including from CNN and the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel. That being said, most of the coverage is regarding a single event and I can see WP:BLP1E applying to the individual, and as the event is the reason for the coverage a redirect to the event would be acceptable.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 17:18, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:34, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:35, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Firearms-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:35, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:35, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 17:11, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to United States v. Olofson. The case may arguably be notable. The man is not. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:46, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to United States v. Olofson. I couldn't have said it better myself Necrothesp. — -dainomite 23:37, 5 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 pageor in adeletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy deleted (A7) by Bbb23. (non-admin closure) Lugia2453 (talk) 22:34, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Tune Kaleidoscope[edit]

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

Prodded but prod removed by IP with no comment. Non-notable website although article states the site doesn't even have a website. The only references are to Facebook, blogs etc. Fails WP:N Tassedethe (talk) 14:33, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Defunct website with no coverage in reliable sources; seems to fail WP:NWEB. --Cerebellum (talk) 15:16, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. The website apparently doesn't even have its own domain. –TC N7 JM 15:47, 2 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 adeletion 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) 14:01, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

List of mythological creatures in the Percy Jackson series[edit]

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

This is an unalphabetized, unwikified list of mythological creatures appearing in the Percy Jackson series. It gives no links to the creatures, no instances of when the creatures appeared, and no description of what purpose they served in the series. Normally I would try to fix this article up myself and make it shine, but there's already a perfectly good section about these creatures at List of Camp Half-Blood characters#Creatures and monsters. öBrambleberry of RiverClan 14:20, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Doesn't seem to satisfy WP:LISTN, I couldn't find any sources which discuss this topic. --Cerebellum (talk) 14:38, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Release the Kraken of Wikipedial Doom and Deletion. As the nominator notes, there's already a better list elsewhere. Clarityfiend (talk) 07:00, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:31, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:31, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:31, 3 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. Discussion is clearly against keeping, although whether a new discussion would have the same result remains to be seen — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:48, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Second Holmes[edit]

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

No evidence that this series meets the notability criteria. A couple of press-releases exist, but no significant coverage can be found. The coverage that I could find mentioned the producer, ~~but did not even verify the cast member details~~. Searches are not helped by several false hits, like "xxx second, Holmes did xxx"; "second. Holmes did..." and also several mentions in the press (especially between about 1895 and 1915) about someone being a "Second Holmes" PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 12:44, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And what about the source cited in the article, which does verify cast members among other details? Phil Bridger (talk) 12:53, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies, the cast were indeed mentioned in a sentence! I have strucken the relevant section. However, this is pretty much the only coverage I could find (others were basically the same article, either through a press-pool system, or because it was based on a press release). One source is not sufficient to meet the criteria for inclusion. PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 13:18, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 12:48, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep this was a radio show that was short lived and we have numerous entries for such like it. results like [[11]] show me that there is coverage for it. See also [[12]], and [[13]] indicate it does have minor notability. Especially because this was a BBC production makes this notable. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 12:56, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The Google results are mostly blogs, fan sites or download sites - none of which are traditionally counted as reliable sources as Wikipedia defines the term. The Cambridge Explorer link is a listing on a Sherlock Holmes fan site. The Radio Times link is useful but it should be born in mind that until 2011, it was a BBC publication and so not independent. It should also be noted that being a production by the BBC does not automatically make it a notable production! PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 14:51, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In my opinion this is similar to artists that are signed by a major lable, inherently notable. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 15:31, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - the fact the series was picked up and written about in an American newspaper indicates to me it was notable enough at the time. It was broadcast 30 years ago, pre internet. The Wikpedia article is short and to the point. Sionk (talk) 13:55, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, the fact that the majority of the sources I could find were American newspapers was intriguing... I couldn't find UK sources! However, as mentioned above, these appear to be based on a press release (or an article that was pooled between different papers), so it is in effect one source (and if based on a press release, not an independent one at that!). I appreciate the fact that it was pre-internet, and sources are harder to find - but looking through various books about TV in my local large library did not find any mentions! Unfortunately, I don't have the time to look through the newspaper archives from 1983 to see if there is a mention (although I would not be surprised if they would turn out to be the same as the American articles almost word-for-word). If I get a chance next week, I'll see if I can do so. PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 14:51, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Elementary The show is detailed in the Sherlock Holmes: Screen and Sound Guide and other works of Sherlockiana such as The Baker Street Journal. Warden (talk) 00:03, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Can you confirm that there is detailed information in the Screen and Sound Guide? GBooks shows "Sherlock Holmes (The Second Holmes). BBC Radio 4, January 2 to February 6, 1983, 7:00 to 7:30 PM. W: Grant C" but no further than this - is it just a list of cast, or is there more discussion that that? Also, do you have some copies of TBSJ which discuss this in more detail than just dates and cast listing - online I can't find their archives of this, but it's not helped by the numerous mentions of "The Second Holmes story The Sign of the Four" and similar. With a couple of citations added to the article of detailed information sources (again, not just an episode list or a cast list), then I'd happily withdraw this nomination - I was unable to find them, but I don't have access to suitable offline sources, all the ones I could find in my local large library in Croydon didn't mention it! PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 10:26, 3 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. Mark Arsten (talk) 13:58, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Hefter[edit]

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

I can find no significant coverage about this author. The mention in the Stickybear and Sweet Pickles articles appear to be sufficient - and if a redirect is deemed necessary, then the more substantial article is Sweet Pickles - although perhaps a link to Stickybear could be placed in that article, along the lines of a series of books by ... Richard Hefter (also the creator of Stickybear) and published... PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 12:03, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 12:09, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 12:09, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

~~Weak~~ Keep as an author of several notable series of books, as indicated by the fact we have Wikipedia articles about them, per WP:AUTHOR. After all, this was over 30 years ago and the small amount of coverage online today indicates there would be more available offline. ~~The article is poor, however, with little more than a bibliography.~~ But I'm wondering whether Hefter died, or went 'off the boil'! Sionk (talk) 14:31, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This article in People magazine convinces me he was very widey known in his day! Sionk (talk) 15:09, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Good find! I think it's more useful for the Sweet Pickles article, but it would certainly be a start, and if a couple of other decent sources like that could be found, I'd be quite happy to withdraw my nomination! PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 16:21, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

When looking for sources, I was expecting to find some decent mentions in Google Books references - but all the ones I could find were where he was an author. He appears to be have been prolific, but all the sources I could find were either his books, lists of his books, or commercial/download sites. There was no coverage of him as an individual PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 14:54, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Yuffo (talk) 20:34, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:27, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Sionk. An author of multiple notable works, and that People article is compelling evidence of notability. --Arxiloxos (talk) 02:42, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep An author of multiple notable works is notable. An author becomes notable in the first place for writing notable books?. What else would he be notable for? Not the details of his private life, which are by comparison trivial as compared to his professional work, and are just background. The only question is when a person is the author of only one notable work and not likely to write any more, in which case it's a toss-up whether to do the article on the author or the book, and this isn't the issue here. What might be a reasonable question is whether the articles on the books should be merged into the article on the author, but that can be decided elsewhere. DGG ( talk ) 02:57, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Nominating this article for deletion, while saying that the articles on his creations give him sufficient coverage, appears to me to be putting the cart before the horse. He is notable because he, Richard Hefter, created the books/characters/series mentioned, and whatever else he has done only adds to his notability. If anything, the other articles could be merged into the article on him. We don't overlook or ignore Walt Disney because many of his creations may have become better known than him or Ian Fleming, the creator of James Bond nor J.K.Rowling because of Harry Potter, to take a few examples. Hefter, too, is notable in his own right. Have a look at this Amazon entry for starters: http://www.amazon.com/Richard-Hefter/e/B001IXMDSU --Zananiri (talk) 13:51, 7 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. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:49, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Movement Control Group[edit]

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

Contested PROD. I can see no evidence that this organisation is notable in its own right. A redirect to Belgian Land Component would possibly be useful, but I can find no significant coverage of this organisation at Google News, Google Books or Google Scholar - the few results that crop up tend to be about other groups, not the Belgian one PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 11:45, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Belgium-related deletion discussions. PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 11:51, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 11:51, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 11:51, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, does not appear to be notable per WP:MILUNIT or WP:ORG; no significant coverage found in multiple non-primary reliable sources to be notable per WP:GNG. As an alternative it could be redirected to its parent organization.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 18:55, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:ORG. I could not find significant coverage. LibStar (talk) 23:11, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I disagree, it is a command formation and therefore meets WP:MILUNIT as "2.Higher level land forces command formations" It's not surprising that nothing comes up on Google docs - it's quite a new unit and, as you may be able to guess, few people write about any aspect of the Belgian military of today.Brigade Piron (talk) 13:20, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Do you know what this formation is called in the official languages of Belgium? Knowing that should lead us to some sources. Phil Bridger (talk) 14:21, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

leaning delete per nom and RightCow but if Brigade Piron (or some other interested party) can in fact dig some stuff up about it being a Higher level land forces command formation and someone is willing to expand the article then I think it may be worth keeping. — -dainomite 23:33, 5 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. Contact me for a history delete once the article is cleaned up — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:50, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Notre Dame Glee Club[edit]

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

A run-of-the-mill university glee club. Fails Wikipedia:Music#Criteria for musicians and ensembles. No third party sources to establish notability under WP:GNG. GrapedApe (talk) 00:47, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WP:MILL is an essay that talks about local branches of banks that have been robbed, so equating a nationally and internationally known touring choir in existence for 100 years with this essay is a specious argument. Unscintillating (talk) 23:33, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Indiana-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:07, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:07, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:07, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:08, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Lack of general notability, this organization or project is not relevant externally to the university. Eduemoni ^↑talk↓ 02:10, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This Google News archive search produces lots of results, most of them are just announcements of performances but some appear to constitute significant coverage: Notre Dame Glee Club Well-Trained Group - LA Times, Large Audience Hears Notre Dame Glee Club - Lewiston Evening Journal. There is also a lot of coverage on Google Books. --Cerebellum (talk) 15:43, 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, Sandstein 09:27, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Meets WP:GNG per [14], [15], [16] (paywalled). Northamerica1000^(talk) 21:05, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - !keep votes point to show reviews, which is routine coverage. One can find similar coverage of every stop on Lady Gaga's tour, but that doesn't mean that every show is notable. --GrapedApe (talk) 12:50, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

True, but it would indicate that Lady Gaga is notable. Those reviews seem to me to satisfy WP:BAND criterion #1. --Cerebellum (talk) 03:58, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
WP:ROUTINE is related to the policy WP:NOT, and a choir is not an event. Unscintillating (talk) 23:33, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Passes WP:GNG, which is not a surprise that a group from a university with high name recognition, that has been around for one hundred years, and regularly tours both the U.S. and internationally, has attracted attention from the world at large. This article has major problems with both WP:V and WP:NPOV, and some identical quotes when comparing ([17] and [18]) which are an attribution problem, so these content issues make this decision close to a delete and redirect for me. But the material referenced by the one reference in the article is valuable and not easily rewritten, thus the article is not "worthless", thus a deletion of the edit history would do unrecoverable damage to the encyclopedia. Also, there is no convenient target for the redirect. Unscintillating (talk) 23:33, 9 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. —Tom Morris (talk) 12:58, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Resignation of Pope Benedict XVI/speech[edit]

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

Misnamed non-article, orphaned, named as if it were intended as a subpage (which is technically impossible in article space), consisting only of an overlong quotation of presumably copyrighted text. Could otherwise be moved somewhere into talk space, if it wasn't for the overuse of non-free text content. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:59, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - copyrighted[19][20]; removed from Resignation of Pope Benedict XVI and replaced with an external link. The suggestion on that article's talk page, in the "Resignation address" section, that news sites have copied it, isn't enough, maybe their policies of fair use allow this; Wikipedia:Non-free content doesn't. Peter James (talk) 14:42, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:53, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- presumably COPY-VIO. Peterkingiron (talk) 13:16, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- presumably COPY-VIO. As just the text & translation, if this belongs anywhere it is Wikisource. Johnbod (talk) 05:30, 5 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. Copyvio. Rs chen 7754 05:34, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Mr. AM[edit]

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

Unreferenced WP:BLP, I don't think it passes WP:N either. –TC N7 JM 05:14, 2 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) 14:01, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Tellurium (software)[edit]

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

I cannot find WP:RSes to support notability Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:25, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails WP:NSOFTWARE notabilty as evidenced by lack of available, reliable sources. - Mr X 04:45, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 19:54, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete - The methodsandtools.com reference in the article appears to be independent coverage in a reliable source, though all of the other sources are user-editable or by the author of the software. Page was created by an SPA as possibly promotional. Dialectric (talk) 10:26, 3 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 keep. Nomination withdrawn, with thanks to both participants for their work. Drmies (talk) 15:48, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Marla Mason[edit]

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

This is not a notable set of books, as a Google News search, for instance, verifies easily. The books are self-published ("funded by donations"), and the only reviews are from blogs. Drmies (talk) 02:47, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The books did not begin as self published, as indicated in the article, but were initially published by Bantam - which in my opinion makes the history of the books more interesting and noteworthy. If you look up Blood Engines you'll find a number of reviews. I'll see what I can do about fleshing out the article a bit. Caseylf (talk) 02:54, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There isn't a lot out there, but there's just enough for this to squeak by notability guidelines for books. It's a fairly thin line, mind you. If it was just the SF Site featured reviews or the PW reviews, I'd probably hesitate, but we have both as well as a lengthy Locus interview that is in-depth about the Mason series in particular and a mention on their yearly list of recommended reads. The RR list isn't that easy to get onto and while it's not the sort of thing that would give notability based on that alone, the combined sources show it just passes notability guidelines.Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 10:21, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Additional: I also found quite a few Locus reviews for the books, so it passes notability guidelines. If anyone is familiar with the series as a whole, it could use a series summary.Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 11:59, 2 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 per WP:CSD#A7. Bbb23 (talk) 01:07, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Pose One (street artist)[edit]

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

No evidence of notability Grahame (talk) 02:44, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Grahame (talk) 02:47, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete likely a hoax. Nick-D (talk) 23:11, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete probably not a hoax but clearly as a graffiti artist Pose Oner has had no impact yet. Sionk (talk) 00:20, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete a7. duffbeerforme (talk) 00:51, 3 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. —Tom Morris (talk) 12:54, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

HD 51021[edit]

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

This star is not visible to the naked eye (barely), nor has any properties of note about it; it seems to fail WP:NASTRO. I am listing it at AfD since I want to know if people feel that it is close enough to naked-eye visibility to be given leeway. StringTheory11 (t • c) 02:30, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:54, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I am unable to find any hits at all for this star in Google scholar under any of the designations for it listed in this article, and the HD catalog isn't pre-astrophotography . As such I think it fails WP:NASTRO. —David Eppstein (talk) 02:43, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – I wasn't able to fit the star to any of the criteria listed at WP:NASTCRIT and it doesn't appear to have any significant scholarly coverage. Praemonitus (talk) 03:25, 8 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) 14:00, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Breezie[edit]

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

Unremarkable TV character from Adventures of Sonic the Hedgehog. Fails WP:GNG, WP:V, WP:N. Mediran (t • c) 02:27, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect - to Adventures of Sonic the Hedgehog. Eeekster (talk) 03:53, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – A minor character that only appeared in one episode of the show isn't even notable enough for a redirect. –TC N7 JM 15:53, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Agree with previous poster, character is too obscure to bother leaving a redirect. Safiel (talk) 16:13, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Adventures of Sonic the Hedgehog –anemone projectors– 17:25, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:10, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:11, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:11, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Since the character only appeared in one episode, and did not appear to make much of an impact, a redirect would not be suitable. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 01:40, 3 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. With all respect, I must discredit all the "delete" arguments which assume Russian neologisms are inherently unworthy for inclusion on the English Wikipedia (see WP:Systematic bias#The nature of Wikipedia's bias), and those based on the poor prose quality of the article (because AfD is not cleanup). This leaves us with the notability arguments which all lean towards a "keep" outcome. Der yck C. 00:18, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Letter Zyu[edit]

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

Pretty much entirely unintelligible, at best it seems to be a random assortment of facts related to a russian phrase Jac16888 ^Talk 12:21, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There are authoritative sources in the ru:Буква зю. Article Letter Zyu by 90% is based on articles in scientific journal: http://elibrary.ru/item.asp?id=17316301 - Candidate of Sciences of Philology А. V. Zelenin (January 2005). "article "Letter Zyu"". «Russian speech (journal Russian Academy of Sciences)»: 79–83. ((cite journal)): External link in |journal= (help). There are authoritative sources the remaining 10% in the ru:Буква зю. Google Akademik. Буква зю. In the Russian Wikipedia: article was restored in the Russian Wikipedia and visited article on the main page Russian Wikipedia Vyacheslav84 (talk) 13:11, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Even if there are legitimate sources for this topic, this article has not been translated from Russian into English well enough for English-speaking people to understand. And it seems possible to me that this subject could be a phrase which is only meaningful in the Russian language and thus should be covered in English only by Wiktionary -- not by the English Wikipedia. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 21:07, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Wikipedia:Notability - 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. and "Reliable" means sources need editorial integrity to allow verifiable evaluation of notability, per the reliable source guideline. Sources may encompass published works in all forms and media, and in any language. Availability of secondary sources covering the subject is a good test for notability.- http://elibrary.ru/item.asp?id=17316301 - Candidate of Sciences of Philology А. V. Zelenin (January 2005). "article "Letter Zyu"". «Russian speech (journal Russian Academy of Sciences)»: 79–83. ((cite journal)): External link in |journal= (help). http://elibrary.ru/title_about.asp?id=8204 is a journal from the list Higher Attestation Commission. "Significant coverage" means that sources address the subject directly in detail, so no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material.[1] - аuthoritative sources sufficed to 8.5 Kilobyte. Vyacheslav84 (talk) 21:46, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:02, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:03, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Russian words and phrases Vyacheslav84 (talk) 07:43, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There are reliable sources cited in the article Letter Zyu, for instance the linked scientific journal: http://elibrary.ru/item.asp?id=17316301 This source, combined with the additional listed sources in the Reference section, provide enough evidence to secure the credibility of the article. In regards to some users having difficulty understanding the article, translations and clean-up can be provided in the future to increase the coherency of this article. However, in order for those tasks to be completed, this article needs to kept. This article is a great start and can only continue to be improved in the future. Tayisiya (talk) 22:12, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- corrected translation Vyacheslav84 (talk) 04:20, 28 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, Mediran (t • c) 02:16, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

ru:Википедия:Значимость it exact (full) analogy Wikipedia:Notability and article was restored in the Russian Wikipedia Vyacheslav84 (talk) 04:52, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not surprised that the corresponding article would have been kept in the Russian Wikipedia. Presumably their article was written in clear Russian about a topic which is inherently part of the Russian language. Here, though, we have an article in unclear English (even after improvements) about a topic which is inherently part of a foreign language. I'm not primarily questioning the article's notability here, I'm primarily questioning its comprehensibility. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 19:44, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Аgain - Category:Russian words and phrases A whole category for Russian words and phrases (even with sub-categories) in English Wikipedia. Than bad is this expression compared to the others? Vyacheslav84 (talk) 09:26, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that other stuff exists does not prove that this article ought to exist. Looking at the first two items in Category:Russian words and phrases, for example, afghanka is an article of clothing, and avoska is a type of bag. These are physical objects which can be, and have been, adequately explained in English without the reader needing to know Russian. Phil Bridger, below, says that the article's comprehensibility should be addressed by editing, not deletion. Maybe so, but right now this article is more puzzling than informative. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 16:32, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Notability - universal rule without exceptions. This category is not for articles about concepts and things but only for articles about the words themselves. Please keep this category purged of everything that is not actually an article about a word or phrase.. Maybe so, but right now this article is more puzzling than informative. - what exactly is not clear? Vyacheslav84 (talk) 05:09, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comprehensibility is an issue that should be addressed by editing, not deletion, and a topic being inherently part of a foreign language has no bearing on its suitability for an encyclopedia of the whole world that happens to be written in English. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:06, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL) - so accurate. Vyacheslav84 (talk) 12:07, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as unintelligible ("a relatively new idiom, which becomes in the evolution of new values"). No opinion about whether the topic is notable, but we'd need to be able to understand the article in order to be able to ascertain that. Sandstein 08:52, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- "a relatively new idiom, which becomes in the evolution of new values" - what exactly is not clear? Under the rules of the Wikipedia article is Notability (Wikipedia:Notability), but the votes does not matter. Vyacheslav84 (talk) 12:35, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per WP:NEO. Seems to be a Russian neologism, not used in English. Miniapolis 15:14, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Category:Russian words and phrases - they are used in English? article Russian language are used in English? Wikipedia is an international project or purely English? Let's not let systemic bias influence us just because this is a article from Ruwiki. Vyacheslav84 (talk) 17:45, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep this is a bit of a ridiculous nomination; we might as well try and delete Mana or any of the other litany of words that are significantly notable in other cultural concepts. 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 - it's notable. I would argue this nomination is really an example of En:wiki systemic bias. Wikipedia is for expanding our horizons guys, not restricting them, and just because it's Russian doesn't mean it's not important, though it probably needs cleanup. Would we delete Textspeak? Buckshot06 (talk) 23:23, 11 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 192d Fighter Wing. Following principle in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/202nd Weather Flight. —Tom Morris (talk) 12:50, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

200th Weather Flight[edit]

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

The article does not have enough significant coverage from multiple reliable sources that are independent of the subject to be considered notable. — -dainomite 01:47, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. — -dainomite 01:54, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Buckshot06 (talk) 08:44, 2 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 102d Intelligence Wing. —Tom Morris (talk) 12:48, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

202nd Weather Flight[edit]

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

The article does not have enough significant coverage from multiple reliable sources to be considered notable. It's most likely all original research and it's one reference only mentions the unit deployed 9 people in 2005. — -dainomite 01:40, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. — -dainomite 01:44, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, and redirect to parent unit 102d Intelligence Wing. The unit does not seem to meet the General Notability Guideline of significant coverage. EricSerge (talk) 02:02, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Buckshot06 (talk) 08:44, 2 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) LlamaAl (talk) 15:56, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Mohra Sharif[edit]

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

This article has remained without proper citations for more than two years. No one seems to care for it, and its notability seems questionable. MezzoMezzo (talk) 09:17, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:30, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:30, 19 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, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2013 February 23. Snotbot t • c » 00:37, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is a village, and inhabited places are presumed notable. It is also a religious shrine in Sufism, so has additional notability in that regard. Problems with the article should be addressed by editors with knowledge of Sufism. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:57, 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, Michaelzeng7 (talk) 01:20, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Cullen. Since it is inhabited, it's notable, and the fact that it hasn't been edited for a couple of years isn't really a good argument for deletion. –TC N7 JM 01:57, 2 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. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:53, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ali khasawneh[edit]

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

This person fails WP:GNG as well as WP:BASIC biographical criteria for notability. No claim to notability is made at all. JFHJr (㊟) 05:58, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Middle East-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:38, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:38, 24 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, Michaelzeng7 (talk) 01:18, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - promotional. And not even at the correct title! Deb (talk) 19:19, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I've moved this article to the correct title but its content hardly seems promotional. Khasawneh appears to have been a fairly prominent individual:

"Top: Jordan has enormous potential for tourism. Historical sites like Petra are already earning foreign currency. Left: Ali Khasawneh, one of the men behind Jordan's development. Right: A handful of salt crystals from the Dead Sea - a valuable export of the future." (New Civil Engineer, 1978)
"But Ali Khasawneh, chairman and managing director of The Arab Potash Company told New Scientist recently "The Israelis will suffer more than us if the canal is built because they have more projects on the Dead Sea."" (The New Scientist, 1983)
"Agreement was reached with a KFAED delegation visiting Amman, APC's chairman and general manager Ali Khasawneh has told the Qatar News Agency." (MEED, 1978)
"December 11: 0800 Visit Potash Project. Mr Ali Khasawneh, president, Arab Potash Co.; Ed Harrell and Tom Pearson, USAID/Jordan to accompany." (U.S. House of Representatives Staff Study Mission, 1978)
"The Amman based Arab Mining Company has increased its participation to maintain its 25 per cent holding. Financing for APC's $ 450 million Dead Sea potash scheme is almost complete, chairman Ali Khasawneh says." (MEED, 1978-1979)
"The chairman and general manager of the Arab Potash Company (APC) Ali Khasawneh says the finance package for the $ 420 million project has been completed. The equity capital has risen to $208 million - 45 per cent of the total cost. The government owns 51 per cent and the remainder is divided between the Amman based Arab Mining Company, the Jeddah based Islamic Development Bank and the seven countries which helped to set up APC..." (MEED, 1979)
"The Arab Potash Company's (APC's) chairman and general manager, Ali Khasawneh, who is to visit Baghdad, will discuss with Finance Ministry officials the payment of Iraq's $ 10 million share in APC." (MEED, 1979)
"In the wake of His Majesty King Hussein's talks with Chinese leaders during his recent visit to the People's Republic of China, the Arab Potash Company (APC) will increase its exports of Jordanian potash to China to 60,000 tonnes for this year, according to APC Director Ali Khasawneh. Mr. Khasawneh revealed that APC makes a profit of $10 per tonne when selling potash to India and China. "That's why APC has drawn up plans to sell nearly 75 per cent of its total potash production to far eastern countries," Mr. Khasawneh said. Jordan sells potash to..." (Foreign Broadcast Information Service, 1984)
"Mr. Ali Khasawneh, managing director of the Kuwait Oil Tanker Co. (UK) Ltd., speaking at the Conference organised by the Bilbao International Fair in June said that in future the independent tanker owner could only survive with the help of a state subsidy. In his view no existing private Arab tanker owner, for example, could hope to maintain an economically viable operation because..." (Fairplay, 1975)

A search in Arabic might be helpful. — C M B J 06:50, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The subject's statements about other things in the capacity of a spokesman does not bear on his own notability. I've added an Arabic language search link above. I searched it WP:BEFORE nominating. The results are, well, خرى ... JFHJr (㊟) 05:20, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No biographical coverage in the sources. The page is an orphan. There is no corresponding native language article. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:43, 6 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. Can be userfied for transwiki if desired. Sandstein 08:47, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

List of bus routes in Essex[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/List of bus routes in Essex (3rd nomination)

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

belongs on Wikivoyage. - Apologies for the constant nominations - Somehow all was going wrong Davey2010 Talk 00:57, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Transwiki to Wikivoyage or delete. As with the discussions of siimilar articles, I see this as unencyclopedic. --Michig (talk) 07:17, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Transwiki to UK Transport Wiki on Wikia. There are no reliable secondary sources to meet WP:GNG and it fails WP:NOTDIR and WO:NOTTRAVEL.--Charles (talk) 10:19, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:02, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:02, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:02, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural closure An article with 300 hundred contributors over six years, massively Wikilinked to other articles, numerous "What Links Here" links, and no evidence of the other relevant factors in WP:BEFORE to prepare the community for a massive deletion; IMO needs more than a three-word deletion nomination without a policy basis. Unscintillating (talk) 03:13, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-encyclopaedic. Support all the nomination reasons and suggest that the bus trivia fans are encouraged to contribute the UK Transport Wiki at Wikia. --Bob Re-born (talk) 6:09 am, 3 March 2013, last Sunday (7 days ago) (UTC−8)
Recommend procedural closure, as the bus route lists would be better discussed as a set, and if one is encyclopedic or unencyclopedic then the others are. Many of the arguments that resulted in other lists being kept or deleted, or often resulted in no consensus, as well as those currently being discussed (West Midlands and Worcestesrhire) could be applied to this one, and there can't be a consensus that these lists are encyclopedic for some counties but not for others just because different editors participated in the discussions, particularly when no editor has provided a reason to distinguish them. Peter James (talk) 7:00 am, 3 March 2013, last Sunday (7 days ago) (UTC−8)
Transwikify to Wikitravel. We do not need this in WP: it is not encyclopaedic and is liable to become inaccurate, if the present editors lose interest. Peterkingiron (talk) 6:15 am, 4 March 2013, last Monday (6 days ago) (UTC−8)
Delete, transwikifying if required or desired to Wikia or someplace else. It realistically fails notability and lists such as this become out of date and next to impossible to maintain reliably as well as not really belonging on Wikipedia. The first two paragraphs would, however, make a useful start to an article named Buses in Essex (rather like Buses in Portsmouth) so there may be mileage in moving the article there and retaining just this content for now, particularly given Unscintillating's comments above. Blue Square Thing (talk) 19:42, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This belongs on Wikivoyage, not here, and fails notability requirements. I concur with Blue Square Thing (talk · contribs) that it is very difficult to keep the content verifiable at this point. TB randley ^(review) 03:52, 10 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. Can be userfied for transwiki if desired. Sandstein 08:46, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

List of bus routes in Kent[edit]

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

Wikipedia isn't travel guide - this belongs on Wikivoyage, not here. Davey2010 Talk 00:38, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Transwiki or delete as unsuitable for an encyclopedia. I can't help feeling that discussing this type of article as a group to reach consensus on what we do with bus route information would be better than putting each one through AfD. --Michig (talk) 07:19, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Previous discussion on wholesale deletion, at Requests for Comment if I remember rightly, has only resulted in consensus that each should be considered separately.--Charles (talk) 10:18, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - Routes should be considered separately, and lists could be if the concerns were primarily notability, but as many editors' recommendations for deletion are influenced by WP:NOT these would apply to all or none. The discussion was at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Archive_86#Are Bus Routes Encyclopaedic?. Peter James (talk) 15:15, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Transwiki to UK Transport Wiki on Wikia. There are no reliable secondary sources to meet WP:GNG and it fails WP:NOTDIR and WO:NOTTRAVEL.--Charles (talk) 10:18, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:56, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:57, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:57, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and suggest the bus trivia fans find a home at the UK Transport Wiki on Wikia if Wikitravel won't accept the article. --Bob Re-born (talk) 14:07, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Recommend procedural closure, as the bus route lists would be better discussed as a set, and if one is encyclopedic or unencyclopedic then the others are. Many of the arguments that resulted in other lists being kept or deleted, or often resulted in no consensus, as well as those currently being discussed (West Midlands and Worcestesrhire) could be applied to this one, and there can't be a consensus that these lists are encyclopedic for some counties but not for others just because different editors participated in the discussions, particularly when no editor has provided a reason to distinguish them. Peter James (talk) 15:15, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Perfectly legitimate article which is part of a nice set for these all over the country. Editors are simply being vindictive towards bus route list articles here. If it ain't sourced to your standards, find some sources, instead of nominating it for deletion and spoiling my work of trying to complete the whole set. Rcsprinter (Gimme a message) @ 23:03, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
TRanswikify to Wikitravel. This is a genre that is popular with some users, but it is non-encyclopaedic. I am also concerned about maintenance if the editors responsible for maintaining them lose interest. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:10, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable and impossible to maintain etc... Consensus just now seems to be that bare bus lists such as this without any real prose content are deletes. Then someone needs to write a Buses in Kent article along the lines of Buses in Portsmouth (or if that's too daunting Buses in Lowestoft) in order to ensure coverage of the area. Transwikify as required of course. Blue Square Thing (talk) 19:46, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - It is customary for WP to contain articles on railroad routes & automobile highways; but not bus routes. The latter are too ephemeral, too numerous. They change frequently, and it is just not feasible to keep a list within WP up to date. Better is an article on the Kent bus routes, with an external link to the up-to-date official bus route schedule. --Noleander (talk) 04:45, 7 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 Lloyd Irvin. J04n(talk page) 18:34, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Team Lloyd Irvin[edit]

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

Page is Non-Notable. Nominated because the information on the page contains no references to any outside third party news or non-advertisement sources. What remains is non-referenced blatant advertising. Any factual information that is negative about the organization is being constantly removed from the page. Articles that do not contain references and avoid the truth should be removed. Warisart (talk) 18:07, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This article appears to be no less notable than any of the other articles about prominent martial arts organizations. I added some citations to help formally establish notability. The concern about commercialization of the article is probably a genuine concern considering the proliferation of Irvin's marketing but I don't think it's very commercial in its current form. It certainly could use more citations however. Buddy23Lee (talk) 01:04, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have tried to clean it up and add citations too, but IP posters keep putting the advertising back in. If all of the names of non-black belts are removed and the page can get some balance..... Warisart (talk) 03:10, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Mdtemp (talk) 19:07, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Lloyd Irvin There's a lack of significant coverage about the team itself--it's mainly about the team's fighters with passing mentions of the team (which makes this WP:NOTINHERITED). The current article's sources consist of a press release and what might be a blog--nothing to show the coverage necessary for notability.Mdtemp (talk) 18:45, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Lloyd Irvin This article lacks the sourcing required to show notability. A listing of every student and every affiliated school makes this more like a promotion piece than an encyclopedia article. The main claim to notability in the article is that some notable fighters have trained there, but I agree that appears to fall under WP:NOTINHERITED. The team is already mentioned in Irvin's article so a merge or redirect seems reasonable, unless additional sourcing is provided. Papaursa (talk) 22:49, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I honestly believe that this instance would cover all three of the reasons not to merge under WP:MERGE. As just one example of a created issue, the Lloyd Irvin bio has been semi-protected twice recently while the organization has not. With a merge you'd be forced to unnecessarily restrict edits to the organization content that is unrelated to the bio content and all of its ongoing issues. I'm going to keep trying to find better citations, but if the vote comes down to merge or delete, I'd rather vote delete. Buddy23Lee (talk) 22:41, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I hardly thing the team article is too large to merge. Get rid of the unnecessary lists of all affiliated schools and students and you're left with the 2 sentence initial paragraph. Papaursa (talk) 23:29, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. I suppose I was thinking more along the lines of awkwardly "clunky". At any rate, the two remain separate (though admittedly well-linked) topics which could be expanded into longer standalone articles, as well as discrete subjects warranting their own articles, even though they might be short, as per WP:MERGE. As much as Lloyd himself might like to believe otherwise, the man and his organization truly are separate entities. Buddy23Lee (talk) 05:22, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What about removing the unnecessary bits to see how the page looks? Warisart (talk) 02:00, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Removing the unnecessary bits is what leaves you with a two sentence article. Papaursa (talk) 19:08, 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, J04n(talk page) 12:36, 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) 00:28, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There's maybe one or two sentences that's salvageable here that could be added to Lloyd Irvin. In my mind, a couple sentences don't make a merge (but YMMV). -- ShinmaWa^(talk) 08:49, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deleting the existing article wouldn't be a major loss, but I think it's preferable to redirect or merge when there's an obvious target. Papaursa (talk) 02:24, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. -- ShinmaWa^(talk) 19:02, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Does anyone think that the ongoing sex scandal controversy regarding this organization, if included, cited, and deemed not to violate any policies, would make the article more notable and worth saving, or perhaps that's not a path we as a wiki should tread? If you don't know what I'm talking about, any simple G search will bring you up to speed... Buddy23Lee (talk) 20:34, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I know the event you're referring to and I don't think it makes the article more notable. I think WP:CRIME, WP:BLP1E, and WP:NOTNEWSPAPER would all support the idea that one incident doesn't make the team notable. Papaursa (talk) 02:46, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Lloyd Irvin. Team Lloyd Irvin has had a number of very prominent mixed martial artists and Brazilian Jiu-Jitsu practitioners but it's rapidly becoming more notable for the rape scandal that is rapidly developing, and most of their top team members and many top affiliated gyms are now disassociating so the team itself is getting rapidly less notable as a functioning fight team. Beansy (talk) 04:45, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
DELETE BuddyLee obviously has some sort of hard on for Lloyd Irvin and his level of bias has made the Lloyd Irvin and Team Lloyd Irvin page completely irrelevant. His whole team minus one main competitor left. There's not even a true team anymore.

Oh, Spitinsk8er, no need to get so upset. We're all working toward making the wiki a better place and some of us just have different ideas on how to do it. I voice my opinion and you voice yours. Ultimately we'll come to some sort of consensus. Relax my friend. :) Buddy23Lee (talk) 19:27, 8 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. After being re-listed three times, there doesn't seem to be a clear consensus on this articles future. Continuous improvement from those interested might spare this article another AFD in the future. A quick Google Search brings up a lot of links, although many of them are YouTube and non-notable sources. However, a few, like this one (already used in the article) could be considered credible with a more thorough look. Finding more than one credible source would be ideal. Re-listing the article a fourth time is unlikely to trigger further discussion (based on the previous three re-listings), and will keep that not so pretty AFD tag on the top of the page for more time. (non-admin closure) Tofutwitch11 ^(TALK) 23:45, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Turban training centre[edit]

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

The article do not meet WP:NOTABILITY. No results founds for Google News Search or Scholar search. Amartyabag ^TALK2ME 08:08, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. LlamaAl (talk) 18:01, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No reliable sources substantiate the article's meager content. Speedy deletion probably would have been acceptable as there is no indication of importance whatsoever (criteria A7). dci | TALK 19:41, 8 February 2013 (UTC) Weak keep. Jethwarp has done a good job of cleaning up the article; the sources he's added are likely sufficient (though not perfect) to pass WP:GNG. dci | TALK 01:56, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. No evidence per WP:RS or WP:GNG. Bearian (talk) 00:39, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:13, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sikhism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:13, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - although on google search major results found are of youtube and advet sites but also found couple of news items related to article and so did clean up of article, reserve my vote for now.Jethwarp (talk) 05:19, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - after having added categories like Category:Personal care and service occupations, I opine to vote as keep.Notability is already established from news reports.Jethwarp (talk) 06:39, 13 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, MBisanz ^talk 01:03, 16 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) 00:08, 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) 00:21, 2 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. No prejudice against creating an article on the band — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:55, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Heitzler[edit]

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

Subject does not fulfills WP:GNG atnair (talk) 06:20, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Some source searches suggest that this person may meet WP:BASIC. Sources found thus far include: [21], [22], [23] (the third has a lesser degree of coverage), two paywalled sources: [24], [25]. Northamerica1000^(talk) 07:23, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:25, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:25, 19 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) 00:06, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - His band seems notable, per this LA Times piece and this one from The Guardian, but I wasn't able to find much verifiable information about him personally. But that leaves me leaning towards keep on the merits, if we can get reliable sourcing. squibix (talk) 00:51, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(By the way, it looks like my first link is the same as Northamerica1000's #4; somehow I got a free version!) squibix (talk) 01:10, 25 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) 00:20, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I found pretty much the same material as Northamerica using google.de. I don't believe there is enough notability here, even though one of the articles could qualify as just barely being substantial coverage, and a lot of the rest focus more on the band (which seems to be slightly more notable). §FreeRangeFrog^croak 16:53, 4 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. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:56, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

List of number-one comedy albums of 2005 (U.S.)[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/List of number-one comedy albums of 2005 (U.S.)

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

I created the more comprehensive decade lists because I thought it was easier to read a list of albums over the course of a decade than it was a list of 52 dates with about 10-12 albums in them, plus one has to only go to two pages rather than eight for the entire history. But in the end, I've come to realize this topic is not notable as there is no coverage in reliable sources regarding number-one comedy albums. Many of these top comedy albums never even crack the Billboard 200 and rarely break into the top 50, and when they do, that becomes the news, not its placing on a comedy chart, even if number one. There's no article on the chart, just included in a list in Billboard charts. Beyond the publishing of the chart itself, even Billboard doesn't discuss in its updates online or in print. Doesn't seem to meet the requirements for stand-alone lists. There doesn't need to be a list of #1s for every Billboard chart. Nothing wrong with a mention of an album's peak position on the chart in the article for the album, however. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 07:44, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:55, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:55, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:56, 19 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) 00:05, 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) 00:19, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - the information is useful and other pages exist like it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kabirat (talk • contribs) 07:19, 4 March 2013‎
- Yes, for charts that have a bit more notability than this one. No one refers to this chart nor what's number one on it in any reliable sources. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 11:06, 4 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. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 13:36, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Air4[edit]

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

This small corporate charter airline fails WP:CORP: It has not been the subject of any significant coverage in reliable, independent sources. FoxyOrange (talk) 20:43, 9 February 2013 (UTC) I am also nominating the following related page because it seems to be a pure duplicate:[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) 00:02, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 06:37, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:04, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:05, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:05, 19 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, Vaca tion 9 00:03, 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) 00:18, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Agree with nom. Fails WP:CORP and not notable. Tofutwitch11 ^(TALK) 02:35, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Can't find sources to establish notability per WP:GNG and WP:CORP. —Tom Morris (talk) 12:45, 9 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 soft delete. Because of low community involvement in this discussion will treat the nomination as an expired proposed deletion, with the understanding that anyone who contests the deletion may request undeletion for any reason J04n(talk page) 18:39, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Tesão de vaca[edit]

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

It was supposed to be about an urban legend, but none of the sources say it is an urban legend (several of these sources don't suport what they were supposed to support). Actually the sources seem to indicate more that it works than that it does not work. The sources mention the term "tesão de vaca", but none of them say what it is. It is not even possible to say they are about the same thing. I believe it should be deleted as original research. Carlinho Teves (talk) 00:28, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:15, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:16, 19 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, Vaca tion 9 00:03, 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) 00:18, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The Portuguese version has additional details. — C M B J 13:09, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per lack of independent reliable secondary sources and original research. The sources may trivially mention the term but don't define what it is (none of them say it is an urban legend). The article in Portuguese says almost the same things because it was probably translated from there (and the additional sources in Portuguese Wikipedia also do not define what it is; one of these sources even copies what is written on Desciclopedia, that is, Uncyclopedia in Portuguese). In conclusion, delete per lack of reliability. Algébrico (talk) 15:01, 4 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. Relisted twice, no consensus reached. Give the article some time to breathe and see if additional information/sources are added before filing again. (non-admin closure) Tofutwitch11 ^(TALK) 21:14, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ibrahim Yukpasi[edit]

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

The only reference for this stub is a book citing the rather non-neutral claim that a religious movement is peaceful; it does not directly relate to the subject. It's been a few years and not a single source has been brought to prove the notability of the actual subject of the article himself. I can't see any reason to keep this article here. MezzoMezzo (talk) 13:29, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Some one had removed reliable info,which i restored.Must be kept.Msoamu (talk) 21:07, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Said info still seems to be based on non-English sources, thus I'm still skeptical about the factuality of the article and the notability of the subject. Per Wikipedia policy, it is acceptable for editors to provide their own translations for sources, to an extent. Would you be willing to do that so sources can be directly quoted? Or possibly provide real brief translations of snippets on the article's talk page? MezzoMezzo (talk) 04:03, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The article is a mess, however, subject seems to be notable, a book was written about him (in Urdu). His name seems to be "Sayyid Shamsuddīn K̲h̲vājah Ibrāhīm Yakpāsī" (1358-1446), very little was written about him in English. The article needs expert attention. I asked for help at WT:ISLAM. Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 07:57, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 12:42, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Afghanistan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:50, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:50, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:50, 19 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, Vaca tion 9 00:01, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment-badly written article on a probably notable topic.--Knight of Infinity (talk) 17:16, 26 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) 00:17, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Are we sure "probably notable" is grounds for keeping an article - especially if it's mentioned in a single non-English source? That's not rhetorical or an attempt to make a point, I'm actually asking because I'm not sure myself. MezzoMezzo (talk) 05:15, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep-I have tried to edit it.It is much notable and should be on wikipedia. Shabiha (talk) 07:13, 4 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. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 10:04, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Shaal Pir Baba[edit]

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

The citation tag has been on this article for almost a year, yet the only "sources" provided are references to a book or periodical (I'm not sure which) that's over a hundred years old and nowhere to be found. Given the user-made family tree and photograph, I believe this article is the result of original research by an editor who is no longer active and thus cannot prove the subject's notability. MezzoMezzo (talk) 13:28, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Must be kept.Notability is already established.Msoamu (talk) 21:08, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Could you clarify? The notability is only supported are from century-old sources which may or may not even exist. Balochistan is a mountainous, impoverished region. While I am sure they must have at least one newspaper, there is no way to verify if that newspaper even exists; the article, as it stands now, is entirely original research by the creator. Hence my request for clarification on how exactly notability has been established. MezzoMezzo (talk) 04:04, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 14:10, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 14:10, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:01, 19 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, Vaca tion 9 00:01, 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) 00:14, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The Baluchistan District Gazetteer, published by the Bombay Education Society's Press in 1907 certainly exists, as it has been digitized by Google. Perhaps MezzoMezzo would like to explain why the claim that "there is no way to verify if that newspaper even exists" was made? By the way, a gazetteer is not a newspaper, but is more analogous to an encyclopedia. As a matter of fact, Wikipedia:Five pillars, which describes the fundamental principles by which Wikipedia operates, says explicitly that we include features of gazeteers. Accordingly, the claim that the article is based on original research is erroneous. That is not to say that the article doesn't need work. It does. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:01, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Answer This link to the gazeteer appears to contain references to the individual now; when I originally inspected it at the time of nomination, I don't remember anything showing, even the image of the cover now available. Given the tone of the article, I assumed this was simply a fan page, though between now and the time when I originally nominated this, it was pointed out to me on two occasions that I did not properly inspect the guidelines for AfD. If you feel strongly that it should be kept (I would disregard Msoamu's comment above as it's unsubstantial), then I will gladly retract the nomination and apologize for my own misunderstanding. MezzoMezzo (talk) 09:35, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't feel strongly as I have no expertise, and am unsure if the level of coverage arises to notability. I just can't support deletion when at least one source is verified and several others are listed. So, the decision about whether to withdraw or let the debate run its course is up to you. Thanks for taking my comment seriously. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 15:37, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, I was somewhat embarrassed when it was pointed out to me (after I nominated a few other articles along with this one) that I hadn't read some key points in the policy. Well, I'm not an expert in this subject at all; I think I'd just leave it with my nomination and your comments to keep it, and wait for more comments (if we could have a subject matter expert on South Asian religious figures, it could possibly finish the issue). Although as it stands right now, it might end up with no consensus - at which point I wouldn't plan on nominating it a second time. MezzoMezzo (talk) 19:53, 3 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.