< 19 May	21 May >

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

The result was delete. J04n(talk page) 12:26, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Adnan Januzaj[edit]

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

Mistakenly contested PROD. This player fails all known notability guidelines, particularly WP:NFOOTY, which states that footballers only become automatically notable if they have played in a competitive, first-team match for a professional club. Januzaj was selected as a substitute against West Brom on Sunday, but that is not enough. – Pee Jay 23:56, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. – Pee Jay 00:01, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - He has not played in a fully pro league or received significant coverage, meaning the article fails WP:NSPORT and WP:GNG. Sir Sputnik (talk) 03:03, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I note that in WP:NFOOTY it says "Youth players are not notable unless they satisfy one of the statements above" which means that his selection for Belgium u-19s is inadequate for keeping and whilst I think he will probably become notable in the future, at the moment he simply does not meet the GNG.--Gilderien Chat|List of good deeds 11:16, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep/Comment - WP:NFOOTY does not clearly define what qualifies an "appearance". I believe him being on the bench against WBA can be considered as a "Player who has appeared in a fully professional league." Note the absence of the word "match" or "game" - were it to read "Players who have...appeared in a match/game in a fully professinal league...", it would suggest unused subs not being counted. Muzher (talk • contribs) 14:29, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment see "A player who signs for a domestic team but has not played in any games is not deemed to have participated in a competition, and is therefore not generally regarded as being notable. ". This says that if they did not play, they are not notable.--Gilderien Chat|List of good deeds 14:44, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Belgium-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:55, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:55, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:55, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:55, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 18:34, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom. Just being on the bench doesn't cut it. Still fails WP:NFOOTBALL and also fails WP:GNG due to lack of significant coverage. – Michael (talk) 19:02, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Is there any chance that, for once in an AfD about a footballer, any of those editors claiming WP:GNG failure could provide the analysis of the sources found by the spoon-fed Google News search that led to that conclusion? Phil Bridger (talk) 20:43, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails GNG and NFOOTBALL. I see nothing but standard coverage in newspapers like the Daily Mail and The Independent. Argyle 4 Life^talk 06:37, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. J04n(talk page) 11:22, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Howard Grief[edit]

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

Non-notable lawyer. He writes a lot, but there's not a lot written about him. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 14:42, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

please do not delete this page. this is very important stuff. howard grief is the leading scholar on this very important issue. he is well known in his field. look what one of the important historians in the world - SIR Martin Gilbert said about his work: " I have now had a chance to go through your book, and have learned a great deal from it. These are tremendously important issues, on which your book throws important light. " "..I shall certainly refer to it in my own work." https://fbcdn-sphotos-g-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-ash3/35617_476711462132_6177345_n.jpg

also look at this video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ijS8mFP4I1A

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xLgqkoZPZ5Q

please don't hold up this important information.

also, you can read some of the book reviews:

http://www.amazon.com/Legal-Foundation-Borders-Israel-International/dp/1936778556/ref=la_B002ZMGJ92_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1368389705&sr=1-1

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Piwi2000 (talk • contribs) 20:09, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. czar · · 16:40, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. czar · · 16:40, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. czar · · 16:40, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete:~~ (Keep, See Below) Difficult to find a diversity of secondary sources about the subject so appears to fail WP:BASIC. Also, though interesting, the subject's interaction with Gilbert is not relevant as notability is not inheritable in most cases. --Pusillanimous (talk•contribs) 14:18, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

i founded a good source:

http://int.icej.org/news/special-reports/land-feud-back

http://mobiletest.jpost.com/Headlines/Article.aspx?id=83282037&cat=2 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Piwi2000 (talk • contribs) 23:08, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Jerusalem Post definitely meets wikipedia standards. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Piwi2000 (talk • contribs) 23:03, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

also look at this:

http://www.iai.it/pdf/DocIAI/iaiwp1306.pdf "Israel Remains on the Right. The Historical Reasons Behind a Long-established Political Supremacy"

howard grief is mentioned here few times as a reference.

the author is Lorenzo Kamel - Lorenzo Kamel is Visiting Fellow at Harvard University's Center for Middle Eastern Studies. He is the author of two books and numerous academic articles. His most recent work, “The impact of ‘Biblical Orientalism’ in late 19th century Palestine", was presented at the 28th MEHAT Conference, Chicago University, in May 2013.

https://www.aspeninstitute.it/aspenia-online/contributors/lorenzo-kamel

Comment The Jerusalem Post piece does amount to significant coverage, but only one instance of significant coverage. WP:N does call for multiple instances. And being cited as a reference in one other work also does not rise to the level of notability. Grief appears to have found a unique argument for the expansion of Israel into the Palestinian territories based on the accords of the San Remo conference. His opinions would have to be considered on the fringe, and not at all widely accepted. Were Grief to obtain widespread acceptance of his position, that might make him notable, but apparently not yet. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 11:54, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I hope this will do it:

Michael Weiser about "The Legal Foundation and Borders of Israel under International Law" — Preceding unsigned comment added by Piwi2000 (talk • contribs) 22:18, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.michaelweiser.org/2013/02/

http://blogs.timesofisrael.com/author/michael-weiser/

"Whether you are a Jew or a gentile, every person who wants to understand the modern Middle East in general and Israel's creation in particular must read Howard Grief's masterpiece The Legal Foundation and Borders of Israel under International Law. Now, I don't use the word "masterpiece" often, but in this case the description is apt. "

Arutz Sheva

'Land for Peace? Peace for Peace'

http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/128585#.UZVdtaJU96M

"Grief is the originator of the thesis that de jure sovereignty over the entire Land of Israel and Palestine was vested in the Jewish People as a result of the San Remo Resolution adopted at the San Remo Peace Conference on April 24, 1920."

http://www.israelnationalnews.com/Articles/Article.aspx/9014#.UZTmLaJU96M

" Jerusalem attorney Howard Grief spent twenty five years researching Israel's legal rights under international law. Grief summed up Israel's legal rights in a new 700-page book entitled, The Legal Foundation and Borders of Israel under International Law. According to Grief, Israel and its legal borders were supposed to be set by the historical formula adopted by the Supreme Council of the Principal Allied Powers at the San Remo Peace Conference in April 1920. Those historical borders were supposed to encompass the Biblical formula of "from Dan to Beersheba." Unfortunately, the French and the British conspired to cut off large portions of Jewish national land before the ink on the Mandate was dry. "

http://www.israelnationalnews.com/Articles/Article.aspx/11408

"Howard Grief, who has provided the seminal work on the legal foundations of Israel under International Law, says one can conclude this because they are the only people mentioned to be dealt with specially. [11]The non-Jews are referred to only to ensure their civil and religious rights are to be protected." "[11] Howard Grief, The Legal Foundation and Borders of Israel under International Law, p. 36"

http://www.israelnationalnews.com/Articles/Article.aspx/11412#.UZVRsqJU96M

"What was the effect of the abandonment of the trust by the trustee in 1948? Howard Grief provides a more legally precise reason,[36] but a simple way to look at it was that when the trustee quit his obligation, the only equitable thing to do was to give the rights to the beneficiary of the trust or the ward of the guardian."

"[36] Grief refers to the doctrine of "acquired rights" codified in the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, Article 70 Article 70 1 b) and the legal doctrine of "estoppel" See: Grief at pp.175,176 (The Legal Foundation and Borders of Israel under International Law)"

http://www.israelnationalnews.com/Articles/Article.aspx/10291#.UZVSMKJU96N

"Howard Grief’s beautiful book “The Legal Foundation and Borders of Israel under International Law” is the best and most important rebuke of the Court’s thesis about Israeli settlements."

The Jewish Press

http://www.jewishpress.com/indepth/columns/keeping-jerusalem/givat-haulpena-and-jerusalem/2012/06/27/2/

"As Israeli constitutional legal expert Howard Grief has summed up, there is a “near-universal but completely false belief that it was the UN Partition Resolution of November 1947 that brought the State of Israel into existence. In fact [however], the UN resolution was an illegal abrogation of Jewish legal rights and title of sovereignty to the whole of Palestine and the Land of Israel, rather than an affirmation of such rights or progenitor of them…. The General Assembly exceeded its authority [when passing the Partition resolution]. It did not have the power to divide the country” that had already been given to the Jews."

American Thinker

http://www.americanthinker.com/2012/03/the_un_acts_in_violation_of_international_law_while_claiming_to_uphold_it.html

"Howard Grief, the author of The Legal Foundation and Borders of Israel under International Law and the leading expert on the subject, co-copied me with three powerful letters in defense of Israel's rights"

crethiplethi.com

http://www.crethiplethi.com/over/

http://www.crethiplethi.com/israeli-sovereignty-over-jerusalem-judea-and-samaria/israel/2010/

"“Howard Grief’s excellent exposition Legal Foundation and Borders of Israel under International Law and his shorter articles[27] are basic to the subject matter at hand. I have been guided by his work. He states that the “acquired rights” doctrine in International Law is codified by the 1969 Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties. It provides, in Article 70 1. (b) for the consequences of the termination of a treaty.” Unless the treaty otherwise provides or the parties otherwise agree, the termination of a treaty under its provisions or in accordance with the present Convention: does not affect any right, obligation or legal situation of the parties created through the execution of the treaty prior to its termination. "[27] Howard Grief, The Legal Foundation and Borders of Israel under International Law: A Treatise on Jewish Sovereignty over the Land of Israel (ISBN-10: 9657344522). See also his articles at:Grief.4thgenevaconvention and Giref.occupationmyth."

Outpost Magazine

"A LANDMARK WORK" by William Mehlman

http://www.think-israel.org/mehlman.griefbook.html

" The Legal Foundation and Borders of Israel under International Law is the product of 25 years of independent research by Grief, a former adviser on international law to the late Professor Yuval Ne'eman, Minister of Energy and Infrastructure in the Shamir government and the father of Israel's nuclear energy program. It is the kind of seminal work that seems destined to become both an indispensible source for defenders of Israel's rights under international law and a mirror on the events and personalities that transformed a November 2, 1917 letter from British Foreign Secretary Lord Arthur James Balfour to Lord Lionel Walter Rothschild into the trumpet call that awakened Jewish nationhood from a 1,900-year coma."

- also note that he was working for a very famous man - Yuval Ne'eman — Preceding unsigned comment added by Piwi2000 (talk • contribs) 20:49, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.mideastoutpost.com/archives/william-mehlman-anarchy-at-turtle-bay.html

"The General Assembly action violates Article 80 of that document, which preserves intact all of the rights granted the Jewish people under the League of Nations Mandate for Palestine. As pointed out by international attorney and author* Howard Grief and confirmed by former Israeli UN ambassador Dr. Dore Gold, Article 80 is a guarantor against any alteration of Jewish rights to Palestine and the Land of Israel enumerated in the Mandate, absent an intervening agreement converting the Mandate into a Trusteeship. “The only time that could have occurred,” Grief submits in a recent paper on the subject, “was during the three-year period between the October 24th 1945 inception of the UN Charter and the May 14th-15th expiration of the Mandate. That did not happen and so those rights, including the right of Jews to immigrate freely to the Land of Israel and establish settlements, as stipulated in Article 6 of the Mandate, remain in full force and effect.” “The United Nations,” he adds, “has no power to transfer those rights to any non-Jewish entity such as the Palestinian Authority.” "

newenglishreview.org

http://www.newenglishreview.org/custpage.cfm/frm/78523/sec_id/78523

http://www.newenglishreview.org/custpage.cfm/frm/78586/sec_id/78586

"[9] The most assiduously researched and thoroughly addressed study on the subject of both sovereignty over, and actual ownership of, the disputed provinces is the recent and long-awaited treatise of the earlier-cited, international legal scholar and Jerusalem attorney [Appendix, supra], Howard Grief, The Legal Foundation and Borders of Israel Under International Law (Jerusalem, 2008): a major undertaking, 25 years in preparation, and the present era’s perhaps-definitive work on the jurisprudential basis for the Jewish State—and which explores the matter exhaustively, with clarity, precision and courtesy for lay apprehensibility. [Available from Mazo Publishers, Jerusalem: 054-7294-565 / USA: 1-815-301-3559. www.mazopublishers.com] "

Gatestone Institute

Whither the "Peace Process"? by Ted Belman

http://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/472/whither-the-peace-process

"[19] Howard Grief, Nativ"

Paul Eidelberg

http://xeniacitizenjournal.wordpress.com/2011/05/25/beyond-un-resolution-242/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Piwi2000 (talk • contribs) 22:15, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It does seem that they are mentioned at least here.[1] Apteva (talk) 18:18, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Grief is a former self-employed lawyer from Canada who became the darling of the Israeli extreme right by proposing bizarre fringe theories (his own book says "original thesis never previously voiced") about the Arab-Israeli conflict. He is so far to the right that he files lawsuits against acts of the Israeli government that is very far to the right itself. All of this means that he is highly unreliable as a source, but that doesn't mean he isn't notable. I think he is notable enough for an article. On the other hand, the article is supposed to be about him, not to be a platform for disseminating his theories. The two large sections called "International Legal Agreements..." should be both deleted, and replaced by at most a few sentences explaining his views. Some criticism should be provided too, though it might be hard to find much since most academic legal experts would consider him too bizarre to respond to. Zero^talk 15:37, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

- Just because he became the "right wing darling" doesn't make him "unreliable".

His arguments are well based on historical facts and high level of legal analyses. Anyone who has legal education and knowledge in international law knows that this is a valid and respectable argument. (That should be heard)

Just because his theories are new and his conclusions are different from the situation De facto and may be different from the interest of some country's/ people doesn't make him/it bizarre. (e.g Galileo Galilei)

In my opinion this is more of an academic issue and should not be judged according to a political point of view. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Piwi2000 (talk • contribs) 16:38, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mkdw ^talk 23:04, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete- First, this article is about 100 times longer than the available sources can confirm and is way beyond promotional. With that aside, there is a reliable source. The Jerusalem Post article is good, but the others are mainly blogs (the .blogger and .wordpress self published type blogs) and passing mentions. I would say that there is not enough to show WP:GNG based on the single WP:RS. I was able to read quite a bit from the blogs and he is truly notable for what he has done, just not notable by Wikipedia guidelines. --FoolMeOnce2Times (talk) 23:57, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

some more academic references:

Israel as the Nation-State of the Jewish People: From the San Remo Conference (1920) to the Netanyahu-Abbas Talks

by Joshua Teitelbaum

http://www.law.georgetown.edu/faculty/teitelbaum-joshua-c.cfm

http://dayan.org/sites/default/files/ME%20Diplomacy-Israel%20as%20the%20Nation-State%20of%20the%20Jewish%20People_%20From%20the%20San%20Remo%20Conference%20(1920)%20to%20the%20Netanyah.pdf

" 6. The most exhaustive study of the international legal basis for the State of Israel is Howard Grief, The Legal Foundation and Borders of Israel under International Law (Jerusalem: Mazo Publishers, 2008), which attributes great importance to the San Remo decision, and which he terms the "San Remo Resolution." "

http://i-rep.emu.edu.tr:8080/xmlui/bitstream/handle/11129/77/Qutob.pdf?sequence=1

"..According to Howard Grief, the conditions and terms of the mandate were drafted by the Zionist Organization.40 Therefore, it did not deal with any Arab national rights. This mandate clearly illustrated the British sympathy to the Zionist movement and moreover the British interests in the region. Grief affirms that there was actually only one purpose for the mandate and that was clearly to secure the establishment of a Jewish state in Palestine.41 According to Article 2, 4 and 6 of the Mandate for Palestine, .."

"41 Howard Grief, The Legal Foundation and Borders of Israel Under International Law (Jerusalem:Mazo Publishers, 2008), 128." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Piwi2000 (talk • contribs) 02:23, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

also - here is a copy of a petition he filled to the House of Commons of Canada:

PETITION TO THE HOUSE OF COMMONS OF CANADA FOR THE REAFFIRMATION OF JEWISH LEGAL RIGHTS TO THE LAND OF ISRAEL AND FORMER MANDATED PALESTINE PREVIOUSLY ASSENTED TO BY CANADA IN 1922 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Piwi2000 (talk • contribs) 06:38, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

http://israeltruthweek.files.wordpress.com/2012/12/goldhar-petition-to-cda.pdf — Preceding unsigned comment added by Piwi2000 (talk • contribs) 06:31, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Partisan Republic of Rasony[edit]

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

Subject appears to fail WP:GNG, as it covers a subject that has not been the topic of any scholarly works (see [2] for the Google Books search and [3] for a basic Google search). All results when searching for English-language sources direct to either Wiki pages or third-party Wiki aggregators. Rarely is there a reference independent of those sorts of sources, and when there is one, it's treated as a minor, unofficial name for the subject (see [4]). Possibly could be redirected to Belarusian resistance during World War II (which, interestingly enough, doesn't mention this "Partisan republic"). Cdtew (talk) 22:40, 20 May 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 May 20. Snotbot t • c » 22:56, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oops - I don't know what I was thinking. Notices sent to Compaq5 and the major IP contributors: [5] and [6], respectively. Cdtew (talk) 00:29, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I'd like to point out the only major source that discusses the subject in detail that's cited in the article is one put out by the Johan Bäckman Institute, an organization that is liable to have many NPOV issues. Cdtew (talk) 00:31, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, a quick look through "Destroy as much as possible" the source published by the Baeckman Institute, shows that it has a very strong anti-Latvian, and subtle pro-Soviet bias; the entire work is constructed of documents allegedly located in archives in Belarus and other Eastern European archives that are published in this work "for the first time". I believe this isn't indicative of a hoax, but indicative of a Soviet propaganda point being trotted out as legitimate history. Cdtew (talk) 21:26, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Belarus-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:43, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:43, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:43, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:43, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related page because it relies on many of the same dubious sources, many foreign language sources, several dead refs, and most importantly - was created by the same editor, User:Compaq 5, at around the same time. Of further note is an "alt history" bbs thread discussing a fictional WWI subject known as Operation Heinrich, which involves the Balkans in that conflict, and which may or may not be related. Additionally, see [7], which is a published work that seems to refer to Operation Heinrich only as a Europe-wide counterintelligence operation. A Google books search reveals nothing relevant to this article's purported subject published in English, and a words and connectors search of Google Books including the term "Belarus" literally only returns the Operation Heinrich page on this site. In other words, reasons include CFORK, HOAX, WP:RS, and GNG. Naturally, if reliable sources can be found that support either article's inclusion, I'm happy to change my vote.

Delete Delete everything User:Compaq 5 has created. Jstor has no literature on these subjects, which leads me to doubt the veracity of these articles. Chris Troutman (talk) 20:09, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both - no reliable, verifiable sources for either article, these smell rather hoaxy to me. Good work catching these. Parsecboy (talk) 16:01, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as apparent hoaxes. bobrayner (talk) 21:33, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete hoax material. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 18:28, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. J04n(talk page) 12:29, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Isabel Kaif[edit]

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

Sister of a notable actress Katrina Kaif but notability is not inherited. Only possible stated claim to fame is a future appearance in films, but Wiki cannot anticipate the future. Search on Google revealed rumours (not mentioned in article) that she had been involved in a sex-video scandal but apparently this has not been proved, the woman filmed may have been a double so all WP:BLP precautions need to be taken. Jpacobb (talk) 15:41, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete but no prejudice against recreation if her career develops (WP:TOOSOON). She gets a few credit points for being related to the other actress, but in this case they're not enough to merit significance, which is really what WP:NOTINHERITED means. Barney the barney barney (talk) 16:16, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. czar · · 16:46, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. czar · · 16:46, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep: I am not sure but think this article should not be deleted as there is quite a few media coverage about her coming appearances in the bolywood. Hits from google news:

1. Link

2. Link

--Robustdsouza (talk) 18:56, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar · · 23:39, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mkdw ^talk 22:51, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Barney the barney. MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:59, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WP:TOOSOON. 1292simon (talk) 13:39, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. J04n(talk page) 12:29, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

International Metaphysical University[edit]

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

I declined A7 as this appears to be an unaccredited educational establishment. Whether or not accreditation is essential to being a 100% educational establishment for the purposes of A7, I do not know. I hope that a decision can be reached about the notability of this establishment (or website, as it is purely online...) here. Peridon (talk) 22:43, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In the first 15 pages of ghits, I could see nothing reliable and independent. Peridon (talk) 22:48, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:58, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:59, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:59, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:59, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:59, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I agree that this "university" does not have sufficient notability to meet WP:ORG or WP:GNG. I only argued against speedy deletion because dem's da rulz. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 11:52, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The article about this "Online University" has only WP:USERGENERATED sources. Google shows others, but only non-reliables, like social media or webforums. Interestingly, there are two forums that are discussing how serious this university is and one of them is 'metaphysics' friendly.--Ben Ben (talk) 19:30, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

PS: Discussion between Dan and me, why I shouldn't have tagged this with A7, is on my talk page.--Ben Ben (talk) 19:30, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've posted at Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion to see if anyone has an answer to this. Peridon (talk) 11:04, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think there's agreement there that anything that might be a genuine education institution should go to afd, instead of speedy, because of the difficulty in deciding just what it is. DGG ( talk ) 23:06, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not enough coverage to be a notable institution. 1292simon (talk) 13:41, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. J04n(talk page) 12:32, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The wives franchise[edit]

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

Completely original research. There is no such "Wives" Franchise. It's just a bunch of shows with similar subject matter. Article has been created and deleted prior. – Recollected • 21:00, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No sources and per WP:NEO. Per previous discussion could it be G4? (WP:CSD#G4) meshach (talk) 21:07, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:12, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:12, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A hard KEEP with maybe the stipulation that it be called something like "VH1"-wives franchise to distinguish from "Housewives" and/or other franchises? This is clearly a category and an article and there are many reliable sources available. TeeVeeed (talk) 02:51, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per the similar nomination for the Style Network's so-called even more irrelevant The "Licious" Franchise, sounds like an editor with the wishful thinking that this is on par with the Real Housewives or Bad Girls Club, but really isn't (and also doesn't know what the punctuation keys on their keyboard do, it's a painful read); also seems to connect shows not based on cast or lineage, but solely on ethnicity of the cast members as being part of this 'franchise' (which The Gossip Game and Love & Hip Hop are not). No network publicity has ever mentioned the shows under this or any other title except as a VH1 original program. We don't create 'franchises' out of thin air; they must be fully sourced and fully connected by neutral sources, this is as far from a hard keep as possible. Nate • (chatter) 03:10, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Noting opposition to "franchise" I am changing that too. The current title is VH1 Wives Series. I disagree that the article is purposely racist, or leaning towards any particular race and it is for that reason that Mob Wives, and other besides, "sports"-wives are included.TeeVeeed (talk) 03:24, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Reverting that move as we're far from the seven days of discussion. Please do not do anything with the article until we have a consensus. Nate • (chatter) 03:33, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What does the time period have to do with changing the title? Why is that reason to revert my edit?TeeVeeed (talk) 03:36, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please read the guidelines of WP:AFD; no pagemoves are allowed to be made while the page is under discussion, because it can be confusing both to readers and the technical process of deletion. Because you moved that page without any discussion I now have to get an admin to move the page back to the original title. Nate • (chatter) 03:39, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

O-TY for explaining that. My bad, but I think I am going to have change my "Keep"-to Keep", but change title to delete franchise word.TeeVeeed (talk) 04:01, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm confused here. I do see at the bottom of WP:AFD where it says hidden categories, "Wikipedia move-protected pages", so then did it allow me to move it because I am logged-in? Just wondering why I was not prevented automatically from moving the page?TeeVeeed (talk) 04:08, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

OK-so I found the answer to my question. I boldly made those edits to preserve the article and clarify it. Besides anyone having to click through to one more page, how could a title-change really confuse people?(quote)"While there is no prohibition against moving an article while an AfD discussion is in progress, editors considering doing so should realize such a move can confuse the discussion greatly, can preempt a closing decision, and can make the discussion difficult to track."TeeVeeed (talk) 04:15, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Even if all of these series are notable, there is nothing to support the notability of grouping them together into this "franchise". 1292simon (talk) 13:45, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. J04n(talk page) 12:33, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Corey schafer[edit]

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

I couldn't find enough to convince myself that the subject is notable. AutomaticStrikeout ? 18:54, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:52, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Hampshire-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:52, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:52, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I just went through ALL of the Google hits for "Corey Schaefer" + "squash," and found nothing but a sentence here and there of her high school and college sports doings (explicitly debarred as counting towards notability by WP:ROUTINE) ... not even the usual social media sites. Oddly enough, I couldn't find a thing pertaining to her alleged professional squash career. Since squash is not covered under the various notability guidelines in NSPORTS, she has to rely on the GNG ... and fails that going away. Ravenswing 19:40, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete' - Sources covering her are college newspapers reporting tournament results. As far as WP:NSPORT goes, there is no specific criteria for squash, but more generally, sports competitors competing at the highest level of their sport have been deemed notable. However, in the case of Schafer, I can find no evidence of competing at the highest level in her sport. Her WSA bio indicates ranking of 191. It notes that her best results are #30 in college but it's unclear if that is a tournament result or a ranking (I suspect ranking) and that she is the number one player on her college team. No indication from the best acheivements that she has competed at the highest level in her sport. -- Whpq (talk) 22:23, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: And even with that, people don't seem to have heard of this sanctioning body. The ONLY Google News hit for "Women's Squash Association" is this wsaworldtour.com site. Right now, if the professional loop to which Schafer purportedly belongs would not itself come within a mile of passing the GNG, she surely doesn't. Ravenswing 05:36, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Does not pass WP:ATHLETE. 1292simon (talk) 13:47, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. J04n(talk page) 12:34, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Denis Stojnić[edit]

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

With two top tier fights (both losses) he fails to meet WP:NMMA. All of the coverage appears to be routine sports reporting so he fails to meet WP:GNG.Mdtemp (talk) 18:25, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: This fighter has only fought in 2 top tier bouts therefore this article is in violation of WP:NMMA Rule 1 and should be deleted immediately. Newsjunky12 (talk) 18:39, 20 May 2013 (UTC) Member of the Association of Deletionist Wikipedians[reply]

~~Keep~~: At least for a few more weeks pending imminent fight announcements. Although article fails WP:NMMA, he has been recently re-signed with the UFC (Official profile added here: http://www.ufc.com/fighter/Denis-Stojnic) and as a result will be competing in top tier bouts soon. Dohertyben (talk) 19:53, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The link you give only shows his previous UFC losses. Do you have any sources that show he has a third top tier fight coming? If not, assuming he will get one is just WP:CRYSTALBALL. At this moment the subject does not appear to meet any WP notability standards, but it might not be unreasonable to userfy this article so it can be recreated if he gets a third top tier fight. Papaursa (talk) 22:09, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, I can't find the interview with him (I also know that's not a credible source), but the UFC only keep fighters under contract on their website, would agree with Papaursa to userfy. Dohertyben (talk) 22:46, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect you want to cancel one of your votes since you have voted both ways. Papaursa (talk) 22:51, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dohertyben, I struck your earlier vote to minimize confusion.Papaursa (talk) 18:08, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies, my watch list didn't seem to migrate properly with my name change, thanks! Soap MacTavish (talk) 19:31, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: he has one of bloodiest fights in UFC (against Struve) that doesn't make him notable? http://www.cagedinsider.com/mma-news/top-10-bloodiest-mma-fights/6/ Master Sun Tzu (talk) 22:51, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's right--making some blog's list of anything doesn't show notability.Mdtemp (talk) 16:27, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bosnia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:50, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:50, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:50, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: He fought twice in UFC, also in Glory and K-1. The page is decent written. Stojnic is the best MMA artist in Bosnia. Illovecoffee (talk) 14:18, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

His nationality is irrelevant to his notability and merely fighting for K-1 or Glory doesn't meet WP:NMMA or WP:KICK--in case you're claiming he's a notable kickboxer.Mdtemp (talk) 16:27, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: He is not kickboxer at all, mate. He fought MMA in K-1 and Glory. Glory before was Dutch and led by Bas Boon, they also had mixed martial arts fights. Notable is Stojnić because of his two UFC fights. His level in Europe was solid. Illovecoffee (talk) 17:22, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

K-1 and Glory are both best known for their kickboxing, not their MMA. They aren't even considered second tier MMA organizations. In addition, his two UFC fights are not enough to meet WP:NMMA--that is, they are not enough to show notability.

Delete: Fails WP:NMMA with only two top-tier fights. Also appears to fail WP:GNG. --TreyGeek (talk) 17:32, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I didn't actually vote earlier, a situation which I'm now rectifying. The subject currently fails to meet WP:NMMA or WP:GNG. Papaursa (talk) 18:08, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. J04n(talk page) 12:34, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Jürgen Czarske[edit]

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

Non-notable, reads like a CV, uncited BLP Tdslk (talk) 18:23, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Article fails to show the subject meets any notability criteria.Mdtemp (talk) 18:28, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: This person fails to meet any criteria in WP:BIO and his article should be deleted immediately. Newsjunky12 (talk) 18:34, 20 May 2013 (UTC) Member of the Association of Deletionist Wikipedians[reply]

Delete A previous Prod on grounds "Does not appear to pass notability criteria of WP:ACADEMIC" was deleted by the article creator, without comment but with the addition of papers jointly authored by the subject. But neither these nor a shared joint 3rd prize are enough to demonstrate individual notability. AllyD (talk) 20:25, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:49, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:49, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:50, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete We have a persistent problem with evaluating researchers employed by industry, who typically publish relatively few formal papers. Almost the only we the usually have is awards, and I don't see any here. DGG ( talk ) 00:07, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I think the awards are too local to confer notability, and I don't see anything else to use as a basis for keeping the article. —David Eppstein (talk) 03:42, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. J04n(talk page) 12:35, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Jessie Gibbs[edit]

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

He has no top tier fights so he fails WP:NMMA and the only sources are his fight record and routine sports coverage so he fails WP:GNG.Mdtemp (talk) 18:14, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: This fighter fails to meet WP:NMMA because he does not have 3 professional fights in top tier companies. Therefore I say delete. Newsjunky12 (Talk) Member of the Association of Deletionist Wikipedians 6:20, May 20, 2013

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:44, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:44, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:44, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete , fails to meet WP:NMMA. 210.7.71.114 (talk) 09:38, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NMMA Rule 1. Dohertyben (talk) 19:56, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. J04n(talk page) 12:36, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dion Staring[edit]

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

MMA fighter with only one top tier fight and no significant independent coverage so he fails both WP:NMMA and WP:GNG.Mdtemp (talk) 18:08, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: This fighter does not qualify the WP:NMMA because he has not competed in 3 top tier fights. Newsjunky12 (talk) 18:29, 20 May 2013 (UTC) Member of the Association of Deletionist Wikipedians.[reply]

Delete: Fails WP:NMMA Dohertyben (talk) 19:43, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:43, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:43, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:43, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete has not met the notability requirements for fighters.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:50, 21 May 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. L Faraone 00:46, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Jeremy Levin[edit]

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

Reason Belleiseult (talk) 17:45, 20 May 2013 (UTC) Does not meet notability guidelines. No information of academic interest is provided about this individual save his employment as a CEO, which does not in and of itself qualify him.[reply]

Keep but fix: This person is notable enough to have an article about. Just let someone get some more references and it will be good. There are other solutions than complete deletion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Newsjunky12 (talk • contribs) 18:01, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I tried searching for references -- but only found one article about him (http://www.fiercebiotech.com/special-reports/25-most-influential-people-biopharma-today/jeremy-levin-25-most-influential-people-b) and one employment history (http://investing.businessweek.com/research/stocks/people/person.asp?personId=163944&ticker=BMY) which seems to qualify him for LinkedIn more than wikipedia. His company is notable, but he himself has little primary coverage to his name. The only other article that links to this one, I believe, is the article for his company. Top search hits for his name pull up numerous other personalities with the same name, and in fact I only stumbled on this article because it was incorrectly linked from Lebanon hostage crisis as the Jeremy Levin that was kidnapped (who may have notability, I'm not certain). Belleiseult (talk) 18:17, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but fix: There is actually a great deal written about him, but primarily in Hebrew. http://he.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D7%92%27%D7%A8%D7%9E%D7%99_%D7%9C%D7%95%D7%99%D7%9F has vey good links to multi-page articles about him in the Israeli media, someone needs to go through the Israeli press and translate the material. Furthermore there are several articles in English which are interviews and much coverage of his business strategy, e.g. http://www.globes.co.il/serveen/globes/docview.asp?did=1000712077 http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-01-02/teva-says-jeremy-levin-named-to-succeed-shlomo-yanai-as-ceo.html http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-04-11/teva-to-reduce-manufacturing-footprint-chief-levin-says.html Tsdek(talk) 19:26, 20 May 2013 (UTC

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:41, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:41, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:41, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: CEO of the largest generic drug manufacturer in the world.Marokwitz (talk) 05:20, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. I'm sorry but Wikipedia only covers subjects that have been shown to be notable by coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject. J04n(talk page) 12:40, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Springs, Islamabad[edit]

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

PROD removed without explanation. The rationale was "Non-notable residential development. Fails WP:N". I believe that rationale could be correct. :) ·Salvidrim!· ✉ 17:47, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: If we had an article for every neighborhood in every city it would be a clusterfuck. This is not notable nor does it have any good sources. My judgement is delete. Newsjunky12 (Talk) 5:56, May 20, 2013 (UTC)]

Let it be. The Springs maybe a new development but it is rather fairly well-known amongst those who know a thing or two about Islamabad's realty market. The developer of the development has a website, which is rather rare in Pakistan, so as far as the online notability goes, any objection on this locality is beyond my comprehension. SZulfiqar (Talk) 3:17, May 21, 2013 (PST)]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:19, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete per WP:ADVERT. This is clearly an attempt by someone associated with the devlopment as seen above. The only sources are the website for the developer and a commercial listing. Violates the above mentioned guideline in addition to a hardcore fail of WP:GNG. MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:55, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Even if we assume good faith that it's not an WP:ADVERT, it should still be deleted as per Newsjunky12's reasons. 1292simon (talk) 13:50, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Don't delete. The sole purpose of Wiki is to educate. Real estate is a tricky business in Pakistan where a lot of illegal developments rip people off their money simply because people do not know whether or not the project is approved by a governing body. In this case, I am researching and I plan to create more pages on legitimate housing societies just so people know what the reliable projects are. The developer of the page in question has invested heavily around the Islamabad-Rawalpindi area on hoardings and billboards and therefore is becoming increasingly well known. I created the page in good faith and hope to educate people on such subjects. SZulfiqar (Talk) 11:53 AM, May 27, 2013 (PST)]

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. L Faraone 00:47, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Jorge (romanian singer)[edit]

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

No real sources attest notability: all we have are a blog post, another blog post and tabloid trash. (This kind of tabloid.) - Biruitorul ^Talk 17:32, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but fix: I completely understand your side of the argument Biruitorul but I say give this article a chance. Get some sources and fix the horrid spelling/grammer and it would be a fine article about someone who is legitimately notable. Don't just delete things if they look bad, fix em! Look at the TV show The Office, when it first came out it got scathing reviews but once they gave it a chance it turned into a juggernaught. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Newsjunky12 (talk • contribs) 17:49, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Right. So how does this comply with WP:GNG? Where is the "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject"? Or where is the compliance with WP:BASIC: "multiple published secondary sources which are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject"? Or with WP:NMUSIC? If some legitimate claims of notability by "Jorge" can be established, we'll see. If not, deletion is imperative. - Biruitorul ^Talk 18:16, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Ok I agree with you. I change my judgement to delete due to violation of WP:GNG. Newsjunky12 (talk) 18:43, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:39, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:39, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:39, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. But if sources to back up the notable claims are found, I will reconsider. 1292simon (talk) 13:52, 25 May 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. L Faraone 00:47, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Solitaire board wargame[edit]

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

Contested prod. Prod concern was: Unreferenced, full of original research. Written in 2005 when standards were different. Would need complete rewrite to bring up to modern standards; no sources found. Creator appears to have abandoned his account and nobody else maintaining the article, so no point adding maintenance tags, hence straight to prod.

Prod was declined with: First look for sources, & if not found, only then nominate for deletion. See WP:BEFORE. There's been a great deal written on games.

As stated in the prod, I have looked for sources and found nothing I think suitable as the basis of an article. Can anyone else do better? —S Marshall T/C 08:59, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. czar · · 10:57, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The topic is notable. It only takes seconds to find a source such as War and Games which has pointers to more sources. In any case, there are obvious alternatives to deletion. Consider one-player game, for example, which is currently pathetic. Warden (talk) 16:00, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I didn't say it wasn't notable. What I said was that I can't find sources suitable as the basis of an article. I can certainly find sources for "Solitaire wargame". I can certainly find sources for "Board wargame". I can certainly find the source you've already found for "Two player board wargame played solitaire". But none of these things are the topic of the article. This article is about solitaire board wargames, which is a degree of granularity too far. There are less than half a dozen examples of actual solitaire board wargames, and only two that matter: B-17, Queen of the Skies and Ambush!. I'd be very impressed if you can find a source that treats them as a topic, Warden.—S Marshall T/C 21:00, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - Less than six? The article lists more than that and it is not complete. As for another source, try the The Comprehensive Guide to Board Wargaming. My !vote stands. Warden (talk) 21:43, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    - The Comprehensive Guide to Board Wargaming by Nicholas Palmer, ISBN 978-0070481909, do you mean? I happen to have a copy on my bookshelves, and I can assure you that it contains nothing whatsoever on the subject. ~~(This is probably because the only edition of the book was compiled in 1977 and nobody produced a commercial solitaire board wargame until 1983.)~~ Or is there some other Comprehensive Guide to Board Wargaming of which I'm unaware?—S Marshall T/C 23:50, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      - That's the one and I have a copy too. It specifically lists games of this sort and discusses the comparative merits of the solitaire games Wolfpack and Operation Olympic, for example — both published in 1974. Your comments indicate that you have some idiosyncratic conception of the topic. Are you perhaps suggesting a fussy distinction between map games and board games, purely based upon the thickness of the playing surface? This is not a normal definition — it would be as if a paperback were not considered to be a book. Warden (talk) 07:31, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        In my copy both of them are described as "Solitaire games", which obviously in context means "Solitaire wargames". As I said above: I can certainly find sources for "Solitaire wargame". I can certainly find sources for "Board wargame"... but none of these things are the topic of the article. This article is about solitaire board wargames, which is a degree of granularity too far. I am, indeed, making that "fussy" distinction. :)
        Wikipedia doesn't actually have an article called Solitaire wargame, but this isn't a good basis for developing one, because it contains no sources and would need to be rewritten from scratch to cover computer games, miniatures games, and a passing mention of board wargames based on the said source.—S Marshall T/C 08:09, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        The article quotes from multiple sources, which it specifies exactly. That's three different factual errors so far. You're out! Warden (talk) 08:16, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Are you deliberately trying to misunderstand? The two quotations from The General aren't about solitaire board wargames as a topic. They're about specific games. The lack of sources about the topic is what I've been banging on about since the start of this conversation.—S Marshall T/C 09:49, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speak of the devil :-)... I'm the author of the Comprehensive Guide and think the article is useful. I'm no kind of expert on Wikipedia inclusion rules, so will just offer an opinion that solitaire board games are an important branch of the genre. The article could however reasonably be extended - for instance, Fall of Rome (SPI) was one of the most successful board wargame designs, published as far back as 1973, see http://boardgamegeek.com/boardgame/8326/the-fall-of-rome. I'm puzzled by the assertion that nobody produced a commercial board wargame before 1983 Nickdpalmer (talk) 11:10, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I stand corrected. :) Can you recommend any published sources that discuss solitaire board wargames as a subject? I don't mean individual games, I mean the topic area.
  What we're trying to come up with is a tree of articles that becomes increasingly specific. So in species we have arthropod, arachnid, spider, tarantula, and Goliath birdeater. In board/hex-and-chit wargames, I think Warden and I would agree that we should have game, wargame, board wargame, solitaire wargame and Ambush!. What we're disagreeing about is whether solitaire board wargame fits into that tree, which in turn depends on whether there's anything to say about solitaire board wargames that doesn't belong in board wargame or solitaire wargame instead. That's why we're focusing on sources: we want to know if there are sources specifically about solitaire board wargames that we can examine.
  You may have noticed that solitaire wargame is a redlink, meaning nobody has written that article. I think Warden and I would both welcome your advice on what should go in there! Warden is of the view that the content of solitaire board wargame can be incorporated into that article; I'd prefer to start from scratch.—S Marshall T/C 12:20, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - To be clear about my position, I would certainly agree that there's a lot more to be done here. I just don't think that deletion would be helpful and, as usual, point to our editing policies: WP:IMPERFECT and WP:PRESERVE. Note that I created the article multiplayer game about the other end of the spectrum and so have some experience of working upon these classifications. The main difficulty nowadays seems to be getting any recognition of a game genre which isn't computerised. We grognards should stick together in the face of the horde of PC/console/app videogames. Warden (talk) 12:38, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J04n(talk page) 17:27, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. Moves magazine had an article on "Solitaire Wargaming" in its very first issue[8], as did Panzer Digest issue 5,[9] and Panzerschreck Magazine issue 13.[10] Clarityfiend (talk) 08:51, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Kudos for finding those references. I'll check my stacks for those ... Warden (talk) 12:01, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Now if only I could get the S&T issues SPI owed me when it went belly up, I'd be a happy camper. Clarityfiend (talk) 02:31, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The User:Colonel has almost always been right when he thinks it possible to expand an article on a subject, & it looks like there are sources for this topic also. DGG ( talk ) 00:05, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was article speedily deleted by User:INeverCry under criterion G4. (Non-admin closure) "Pepper" @ 00:53, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

David Huerta (police officer)[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Unfortunately, this article is not for Wikipedia. It fails WP:GNG and WP:BIO. Previously nominated for deletion in 2012 with result of delete. FoolMeOnce2Times (talk) 16:38, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per prior AfD and my comments there. Then SALT this. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 17:20, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:35, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:35, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:35, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. J04n(talk page) 12:42, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Windowgate[edit]

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

Non-notable event; it garnered some press coverage at the time, but it is hardly an important event in the recent history of cricket, let alone an event notable enough for an encyclopedia entry. The information should be provided in the parent article (Sri Lankan cricket team in England in 2011) at that should suffice. Harrias ^talk 16:29, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:GNG. Source 11 shows that it has more than just brief press coverage at the time. I think it also has notability from being damage to a listed building at the Home of Cricket that precipitated an alteration of the Lord's Pavilion. User:Chamal_N also gave a good reason for the article to remain at the the DYK nomination page. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 16:33, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:TRIVIA and add a short piece in the main tour article as Harrias suggests. ----Jack | ^{talk page} 18:10, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's more of a merge !vote isn't it? No need to delete when there is info that might be retrieved if needs be. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 18:28, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Reply. No, it is not a "merge vote". It is a clear vote for deletion because the information is trivia. I have simply agreed with Harrias that the incident is worth mentioning in the tour article. ----Jack | ^{talk page} 19:28, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Non-notable incident. I wouldn't even put it in the main tour article it's so trivial. Johnlp (talk) 21:03, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Non-notable, and inclined to agree with Harrias and Johnlp. I think claiming notability based on damage to a listed building that required mild alterations is a little unconvincing. This should be no more than a sentence in Prior's article, and I don't think it is worth including in the tour article. Sarastro1 (talk) 21:31, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:22, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:22, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:22, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete simply because notability is not inherited from Lord's Pavilion or Matt Prior. A line already mentions the incident in Sri Lankan cricket team in England in 2011#2nd Test and I don't think "man breaks window" events warrant articles here. If it were such a big deal to Prior's career you'd think someone would've at least mentioned it in his article by now. Funny ^Pika! 08:38, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination and above comments. Perhaps worth mentioning in a sentence in Prior's article, but nothing more substantial than that. Howzat?Out!Out!Out! (talk) 15:49, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- This is a wholly NN incident. I might be worth a mention in another article; and I gather that has been done. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:08, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to List of Forgotten Realms characters. If someone wants to create List of Drow Houses in the Forgotten Realms setting, and can prove that it passes WP:LISTN, then material from this article can be merged into that one too. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 10:16, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

House Baenre[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

More fancruft, similar House Do'Urden. All in-universe with no sign of WP:N. Qwertyus (talk) 01:38, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:46, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:46, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge this and its sibling list articles into something like a list of Drow Houses in the Forgotten Realms setting. They're not individually notable, but the sum of the info can probably be presented at least as appropriately as a list of characters from a TV show. Jclemens (talk) 05:14, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

where is the third party coverage about Drow Houses to sustain the suggested merge target? -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 03:15, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge per Jclemens, or into List of Forgotten Realms characters. One RS has been added, which is better than how we started off. BOZ (talk) 14:02, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: All of the sources are either primary or unreliable. Hence it does not satisfy WP:GNG. Relocating the material to another page would not resolve this issue. Praemonitus (talk) 00:02, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, it would, and we regularly do that with character lists from notable franchises, which TSR's sponsored fiction certainly seems to be. Jclemens (talk) 01:02, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - Then I look forward to seeing your efforts. However, merging into an as-of-yet non-existent article will not satisfy WP:GNG. Praemonitus (talk) 20:16, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable per the absence of significant coverage in secondary sources. Creating a "list of drow houses" would merely shift the problem away instead of solving it, since this hypothetical list, a subsection of intricate plot trivia, is unlikely to be any more notable than the current article. "Wikipedia does not aim to contain all data or expression found elsewhere on the Internet", per WP:NOT. Folken de Fanel (talk) 20:07, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
delete no third party sources that provide significant content about the subject of the article. (there is a single source that provides a trivial mention about a single very very small portion of the purported subject.) -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 03:15, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
delete fancruft. Im sure there is a forgotten realms wiki somewhere. We shouldn't be mirroring it. Gaijin42 (talk) 15:04, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to list of Forgotten Realms characters as a possible search term. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 18:44, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per User:Torchiest, merging any usable content (since the Baenre entry in that list currently points to the article under discussion and is otherwise empty).Vulcan's Forge (talk) 01:58, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect per Torchiest; information worth keeping as part of the character list, but not as an independent article. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 17:17, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JayJay^{What did I do?} 16:11, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

merge Doesn't meet WP:N, but there is a clear and obvious merge target, so use it. I'm not clear why this was relisted as a pure delete isn't really an option given the list article in question... Hobit (talk) 07:19, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- That, and the sister deletion of House Do'Urden was closed as a merge, so it makes sense to do the same here rather than delete. BOZ (talk) 11:56, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into list of Forgotten Realms characters. Could do with a lot of work, but some of the text is possibly worth salvaging. 1292simon (talk) 13:58, 25 May 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. Insufficent reliable sources to establish notability. One keep vote was from an IP account whose only contribution was this debate. Another keep vote noted that the article needs more sources. Other keep votes are unconvincing. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 15:03, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Lily Cade[edit]

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

Fails PORNBIO and GNG. Only substantial coverage is from interviews with gossip columnist, Cindi Loftus (Ladiez Night, see Luke Ford) and a self-published blog (wordpress). Morbidthoughts (talk) 07:47, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. czar · · 09:55, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. czar · · 09:56, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Only possibly significant award noms are scene-related; the "Feminist Porn Award" is given by a retailer to products it sells and therefore does not contribute to notability. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 13:07, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:48, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:49, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails GNG. I'm finding only passing mentions by reliable sources. Fails PORNBIO with only minor or scene-related awards and nominations. • Gene93k (talk) 18:05, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Every award helps →Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 19:26, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Feminist Porn Awards are sponsored by a retail store, but they are a significant award for the queer/indie porn scene. Lily's website won this award, and Good For Her retail store in no way sells websites. She's also been nominated for multiple scene related AVN awards, which as a girl/girl performer, are the only awards she's really eligible for at AVN. In addition, two movies she directed (Art School Dykes and Butches and Babes) have been nominated for best all girl release at the AVN awards. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.84.43.191 (talk) 02:15, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - AVN awards. Properly sourced. Seems fine to me. Looking for more sources. Web Warlock (talk) 02:47, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Those AVN award nominations are scene-related. Per editor consensus, scene-related awards don't count toward notability. As for the sources, most are primary. The only references with any depth are an AVN article that looks like a press release and an interview in a blog. Certainly not enough to pass GNG. • Gene93k (talk) 02:23, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree that it fails GNG. Yes, there could be more information and some of these sources are Primary, but this article needs a refimprove tag, not a afd. Web Warlock (talk) 11:36, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Plus isn't also policy to engage in a discussion before going to AFD? Looking at the history of the article prior to AFD it was being worked on yet no discussion by the Nom on a potential AFD. Web Warlock (talk) 11:39, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep 1. Has won a well-known and significant industry award, and 2. has made unique contributions to the LGBT genre of pornography. I do agree that additional secondary sources should be gathered and introduced into the article though. Nicoli Maege (talk) 14:45, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete until some of the above keep voters will prove their claims. Noone has provided a single source that document the "unique contributions to the LGBT genre" or the significance of her awards (better said, honorable mentions). Arguments like "I disagree that it fails GNG" have no value without providing evidences of the contrary. Cavarrone (talk) 09:19, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Some of have been, or have you not read the history? Research takes time and about 90% of the sites I need to read are blocked from work. Web Warlock (talk) 15:40, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Which "history" do you refer? I don't care any claim made without providing evidences, you and others voted "keep" about one week ago and you all were unable to find ten minutes of your time to offer us a minimal coverage about her? I have more faith in users like the nominator or Gene93k that made those researches and failed in finding such coverage. If they were wrong you need to prove that, this is how Wikipedia works. Cavarrone (talk) 16:27, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete tellingly, her Feminist Porn Award honourable mention doesn't have a link to any coverage link most of the other awards on that page. There is no in depth coverage. Editor of articles starting with L (talk) 11:25, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JayJay^{What did I do?} 16:10, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, good sourcing for Feminist Porn Award and in addition, not just coverage as actress but also as Film director. Cheers, — Cirt (talk) 18:42, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Except that she didn't actually win any Feminist Porn Awards. "Honorable Mention" isn't winning. "Her" website may have won, but that award should properly be attributed to its unnamed webmaster, whatever significance it might have. The lack of reliable sourcing for the claims supporting notability remains conspicuous. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 17:22, 26 May 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 as vandalism. Fram (talk) 14:20, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

R.B.P.[edit]

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

To my knowledge, Random Bollock Pain is not an accepted medical term that would require a Wikipedia article. Of course, there is testicular pain, but I don't think that R.B.P. should be redirected there, either: The article reads like being made up. FoxyOrange (talk) 15:14, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:23, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Is this not more properly a PROD target? In the meantime, it seems like an obvious SPEEDY delete. Maury Markowitz (talk) 23:14, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. J04n(talk page) 12:46, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Damon A Williams[edit]

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

This is a biographical article of a person who most likely does not meet WP:BIO. It has carried an unchallenged {notability} tag for nearly two years, and reads like a CV. A Google search for Mr. Williams yields zero secondary sources to support notability. In addition, the article has been edited primarily by user:Ksdunn0524 and user:Jihad061, both of which are SPA for adding information about Mr. Williams to the mainspace. Someone more familiar with WP:SOC than I should probably do some further investigation. Drasil (talk) 09:49, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. czar · · 16:42, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. czar · · 16:44, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:52, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Unremarkable university administrator, fails WP:BIO. WP:PROF does not apply, as administrators are not academic researchers in the sense of the guideline. Ray^Talk 18:57, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment/Weak Keep: I agree with the above analysis on WP:SPA, but he is mentioned prominently in this Chronicle article on a University of Wisconsin protest, so perhaps there's more notable information out there. --Pusillanimous (talk•contribs) 02:54, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ouch. I went and read that article, and if an article were written purely using that for a source, I'd argue for deletion as a borderline attack page. It is, to say the least, not complimentary to the subject, and describes the subject strictly in a negative light in the context of one event. I still think we're better off deleting this one. Ray^Talk 14:42, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I now have a higher respect for Mr. Williams after having read that article, but I'm still with Ray on this. Having blame transparently pinned on you by a commentator with an agenda is unfortunately the lot of the administrative life and insufficiently remarkable to support notability.--Drasil (talk) 18:40, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L Faraone 15:09, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. He seems to be below threshold for all categories of WP:PROF (his administrative position is high level but not high enough) and the source found by Pusillanimous is too editorial to be usable in a BLP. However contra Ray, WP:PROF certainly would apply if e.g. his publications had sufficiently high citation counts to demonstrate impact (they don't). —David Eppstein (talk) 17:56, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- agreed on all counts of David Eppstein's analysis. Provost of U Wisc. would be sufficient for me, but not Vice-Provost; the references are real but not enough for GNG. -- Michael Scott Cuthbert (talk) 20:03, 24 May 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. L Faraone 00:48, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Series60-Remote[edit]

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

No reliable sources, nothing to indicate this is notable Jac16888 ^Talk 16:30, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am using the program over some time now. The original developer seams to take a break. There were no activate after July 2012. But still series60-remote is stable and can be used for S60 mobile phones. It is also included in some important Linux distributions. I am now starting to use the Open Mobile Suite and if Lukas Hetzenecker does not want to continue his really good work than I will do that. So why do you want do delete it? User:Ypid 19:05, 12 May 2013 (CEST)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. czar · · 16:37, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Because it demonstrates no notability through the use of reliable 3rd party references--Jac16888 ^Talk 17:57, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Is not the diploma thesis that I cited recently a reliable source? User:Ypid 21:19, 05 May 2013 (CEST)

It was written by the person who created the software, so basically no--Jac16888 ^Talk 19:59, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I agree with Jac16888 on this one. Not enough notability and sources are not reliable. We need 3rd party sources not sources from the creator of the software. Most of the sources are links to places where you can buy it or they are in a different language. Newsjunky12 (talk). 1:42 PM EST, May 20, 2013.

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L Faraone 15:09, 20 May 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. J04n(talk page) 12:47, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Accursed Lands[edit]

(Find video game sources: "Accursed Lands" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · TWL · NYT · WP reference · VG/RS · VG/RL · WPVG/Talk)

Entirely referenced using the primary source, or self-published sources, no improvement since I originally tagged it as such 4 years ago. Marasmusine (talk) 22:06, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) czar · · 00:02, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Non-notable. --Pusillanimous (talk•contribs) 02:37, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L Faraone 15:00, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG. 069952497a^{Comments and complaints}_{Stuff I've done} 20:41, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. J04n(talk page) 12:48, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Seema Jilani[edit]

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

Sources are "Profiles" on various websites, an opinion blog for NYT, and a primary source. Doesn't seem to have have independent coverage, or a strong claim of notability other than a weak source for being nominated for a Peabody Award. Dennis Brown - 2¢ - © - @ - Join WER 22:13, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Middle East-related deletion discussions. czar · · 00:01, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:48, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:48, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The article needs work, but her encounter at the White House has increased her notability, and the profiles make it clear that she's written for multiple top-tier outlets. --Pusillanimous (talk•contribs) 02:34, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete She has covered many stories but she herself is not a story. There is little notability of the author herself. Not every journalist becomes an entry in Wikipedia. Jason from nyc (talk) 16:18, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L Faraone 14:59, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete. She is not a notable person. Delete this article.Jussychoulex (talk) 18:45, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is the classic example of one event. Having one thing happen in their life that someone writes about and gets attention does not make them notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:19, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Her blog going viral on social media, which seems to be the main reason for the creation of this article, does not make her notable per WP:GNG.--Zananiri (talk) 12:10, 27 May 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. There are sources available to indicate notability. While I understand the argument that it is debatable that this person is notable in English language sources, we are a global site, and the deletion policy doesn't allow for deletion because the main sources are in a foreign language. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 15:20, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Saji Kazunari[edit]

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

See list at Wikipedia:WikiProject Japan/Historical people. The sole cited source is reliable, but it gives very little information. A quick search of Google books shows no support. ~~The stub article does not indicate the importance or significance of the subject.~~ --Ansei (talk) 19:57, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. czar · · 20:07, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. czar · · 20:07, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. czar · · 20:07, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Sometimes things can be significant enough for an article, but we can't expand the article beyond a what would normally be considered "stub-size" because of the scarcity of historical record means that however much research academics try to do, they won't be able to find anything else because nothing has survived. This is possibly the case here, but I'm not sure it's a valid reason to delete. Barney the barney barney (talk) 20:08, 8 May 2013 (UTC) but that's not the case here. The Japanese and Chinese Wikipedias are quite extensive and contain references. References needn't be in English. Barney the barney barney (talk) 20:10, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: There seems to be a lot of talk about him in Japanese on the net recently because his wife was the main character in the NHK Taiga drama in 2011. Saji himself appears as a significant character, which I added to the article. More research is needed to find more historical and not just popular writing. Michitaro (talk) 04:12, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- Is it helpful to move the discussion towards issues of WP:Inherent Notability? I wonder if there might be consensus support for this sentence:

All historical characters in any of the annual NHK Taiga dramas are good articles because NHK is sufficient support?

If yes, I think I "get it". If no, I don't think I understand the implied arguments well enough. --Ansei (talk) 13:42, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment--I would think anyone who has been the subject of a major motion picture or television show would be notable, but there is no reason to say that any historical figure that appears in an NHK drama is notable. The Taiga drama run for 52 weeks with probably over 100 characters. As often is the case, you'd have to judge each on a case by case basis. Since I did not use Saji's appearance as reason to say Keep, I in no ways said that is sufficient. But it is one factor to be considered, among others. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Michitaro (talk • contribs) 01:34, 11 May 2013‎ (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L Faraone 02:53, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: A lot of comments above, but no actual keeps or deletes. Having reviewed the article and the arguments above, given the material clearly available via the Japanese-language Wikipedia page, I say keep. Bondegezou (talk) 16:10, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Article's subject does not meet WP:BASIC. There were many samurai warriors during the Sengoku and Edo periods, and the article does not indicate this particular person's notability; the fact that he was the "warden of a castle" is insufficient. Miniapolis 14:38, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J04n(talk page) 14:42, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I was able to add two references: one from a reliable historical dictionary, the other on the actor faced with playing Saji for the NHK Taiga drama. While these are rather different sources, they speak to both his historical notability and his popular presence today. I was a little concerned about his notability being inherited--he is known mostly for marrying the woman who would marry a shogun and mother another--but that is also his story. Michitaro (talk) 21:44, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I am really on the fence with the import of foreign-language articles into the English-language Wikipedia. The Ja version has sources and if those sources were appropriately translated and imported, I could agree to keep this article. The article is about a historical figure and could stand to be better known in the Western World. However, that process of bringing the references hasn't been done and I doubt will ever be done. Perhaps articles like this one simply aren't notable to English-speaking people. In fact, many of the historical figures portrayed in Gō (TV series) have articles that are similarly unreferenced. I'm content to delete all of them and link to the Japanese-language wiki. Chris Troutman (talk) 18:19, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As far as I can tell, not really notable in his own right. Only known for marrying Oeyo. He deserves a mention on that page, nothing more. Bueller 007 (talk) 00:55, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was userfication. Page being moved to User:Eldakin569/Promotional mug J04n(talk page) 11:30, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Promotional mug[edit]

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

Was speedily deleted as a fork of mug. Author has protested so I will allow an AfD discussion. Certainly I feel it is better handled within the mug article and I question whether it even need a redirect. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 14:00, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect since they're WP:CHEAP. Article as it stands is more or less a copy of Mug. Ansh666 01:06, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Also, Userfy per below. Ansh666 01:18, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. It's worth a line or two in Mug, nothing more. Clarityfiend (talk) 10:20, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (or redirect, that's fine with me) - if the topic is notable there could of course be an article about it, but the current article contains virtually nothing about promotional mugs as opposed to other mugs — and almost all the content is taken from Mug. --bonadea contributions talk 10:07, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Move to my sandbox I still believe that the article is notable as per WP:GNG and should be in its own namespace as a stand alone article. What it lacks as some editors have observed is the bits and pieces about the promotional and branding bit. We have to all agree that promotional mugs exist.The topic might not be in the New York times or JSTOR but these mugs exists and even the Wikimedia Foundation that runs this project uses them for promotion purposes. The article is not tailored to advertise anything but to cover on the various materials and in future upon expansion to shade light on the methods used to brand these mugs. I have been busy offline and I have not had enough time to write about the 7+ technologies used in creation of promotional mugs. When you look at the see also section in the article, you will be directed to other pages which I think are in the same scope as this one. If other authors feel that the article should be deleted then I would request it to be moved to my sandbox so that I can improve it there to prove its worth. Eldakin569 (talk) 05:55, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy as per Eldakin569. Given that you seem to be the primary editor on this article, moving it over to your sandbox seems reasonable. It's possible - even likely - that taking some more time to find sources and differentiate this from Mug would be worthwhile. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 15:26, 24 May 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. L Faraone 00:48, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Irving Karchmar[edit]

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

Delete. After cleaning up this article to get a good look at what remains after the removal of clutter, and having searched the internet to see what Irving Karchmar has been doing, I am not convinced that he meets notability requirements. He has written a book, but it has received little publicity, is held by few libraries, and is mostly self-promoted. On Irving Karchmar himself there is almost nothing except blog stuff. George Custer's Sabre (talk) 05:38, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No apparent notability. --Merbabu (talk) 05:47, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I see a lot of search results for this guy. I think he passes WP:GNG.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 13:37, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

-- Dear TonyTheTiger, please elaborate on the "search results" you say you saw. Thanks. I can't find anything meaningful except blogs and other relatively unimportant sites, many of which are related to the guy. George Custer's Sabre (talk) 13:42, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Here are a few from page 1 of the google search [11] and [12]--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 10:56, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

--- Dear TonyTheTiger, thank you, but these are merely blogs that would be inadequate as Wikipedia references, let alone as evidence of notability. Regards,George Custer's Sabre (talk) 11:18, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep His novel is translated into more than six languages, he gives public lectures on Sufism, and I think he passes WP:GNG. -- Rayabhari (talk) 15:16, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

-- Dear Rayabhari, thanks, but please provide verifiable third-party evidence of the public lectures you say he gives. George Custer's Sabre (talk) 06:13, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There is no indication of any notability of this book. --Merbabu (talk) 05:16, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:08, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:08, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:08, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a major fail of WP:GNG, not a pass. The fact that a novel may or may not have been translated doesn't even translate (har har har) into automatic notability for the novel itself, much less the author. And of the three sources given, one is to Amazon, one is to a site promoting the book, and one is a one-sentence mention of his name one time because he had a local community speaking engagement. MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:49, 25 May 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. J04n(talk page) 12:51, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ajit Varma[edit]

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

Seems to fail WP:GNG. I could probably have BLPPROD'ed this because the only "sources" are two inline barelinks to his companies. Can find nothing else about him other than mirrors of us and regurgitations of those two WP:SPS. Sitush (talk) 08:48, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. czar · · 10:59, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails WP:GNG--Nixie9✉ 22:31, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 12:58, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete. Not a notable person. Delete this article.Jussychoulex (talk) 18:43, 20 May 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. Keep as disambig L Faraone 00:51, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

BMW X Models[edit]

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

The topic can be comprehensively covered by the BMW X1, BMW X3, etc articles. I don't think we need a page just to say "X1 is the SUV 1-series, X3 is the SUV 3-series", etc 1292simon (talk) 11:54, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry that the text above is broken. If someone could fix it please, that would be much appreciated. Regards, 1292simon (talk) 11:59, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Done —KuyaBriBri^Talk 14:56, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:27, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:27, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and convert to a proper disambiguation page. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 18:12, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. J04n(talk page) 12:52, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

TAO BOIZ[edit]

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

Two non notable rappers get articles deleted - A.T.M JEFF (afd) and G-Marl Jamal (afd). And then deleted again. Another "new" spa editor appears and creates an article on their pairing. The band TAO BOIZ existed at the time of the previus afd and showed no sign of being remotely notable. The award that they "won" is not major and does not seem to have got any mentions in the press. If reading this article is not enough to convince you this is not a vanity project of non notable rappers then just ask an admin to show yow the deleted cruft on the individuals. duffbeerforme (talk) 10:38, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Pearl of Africa wayback this article links to is a 2004 awards toatly unrelated to these two .... duffbeerforme (talk) 10:44, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:25, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:25, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. These guys appear to have the usual social media accounts (Facebook, Myspace, Blogger, etc), but all the other Ghits I found for them basically just mention them in passing. Also, per nom, the award they won isn't major, and to say the article has serious POV problems would be an understatement. Erpert ^{Who is this guy? | Wanna talk about it?} 06:23, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - can't find evidence of meeting WP:GNG or WP:NMUSIC.Doctorhawkes (talk) 11:16, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was procedural. AfD discussion not required to propose a merge. See Wikipedia:Merging. J04n(talk page) 11:39, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Natural language API[edit]

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

Suggest Merge to API. Don't think this is notable on its own Gbawden (talk) 09:16, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:24, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment/merge - You can use the merge and notability templates instead of using the deletion process to merge. I support a merge to either API or Natural language processing - Sidelight 12 ^Talk 00:40, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Already merged: The article itself is utterly confusing, but the attached ref appears to be much simpler and NOTEable. That said, the topic is already covered in Maluuba, which is really an article about this API. No AfD required, just REDIR it. Maury Markowitz (talk) 11:00, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Snow Keep. There are several reliable sources in the article, and there have been no arguments for deletion except for the nominator. (non-admin closure) Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 08:18, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Engrish[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

There No such term, it is a racist slang. There is No valid RS to support this except a South Park Episode and some racist sites. This is simply classified as "bad" or "poor" grammar (not Engrish) and maybe offensive to some people. Tyros1972 (talk) 07:53, 20 May 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 May 20. Snotbot t • c » 08:33, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep, WP:POINT. Wikipedia is not censored against "racist" slang. The sources in the article include several reliable books. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 08:40, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not one of the alleged sources have a link, except "South park" which never even mentions the word "Engrish".Tyros1972 (talk) 17:23, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Very common racist crap. Place in the right context you have a good article. duffbeerforme (talk) 10:56, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
SNOW keep - under WP:CENSORED and WP:POINT, clearly well-referenced and is notable enough to warrant an article in its own right. hmssolent\^{You rang?} _{ship's log} 12:25, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep. WP:IDONTLIKEIT isn't a reason. 069952497a^{Comments and complaints}_{Stuff I've done} 14:29, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's not my reason, there is no such term and none of the sources are reliable since they don't even have links, except South Park which never once mentions the word "Engrish". Tyros1972 (talk) 17:23, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

References don't have to have links to be legitimate. 069952497a^{Comments and complaints}_{Stuff I've done} 20:38, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - it's well written and well sourced. It could be perceived as racist, but Wikipedia is not correct and WP:THEYDONTLIKEIT is not a legitimate deletion argument. If the article spawns racist arguments on the talk page, then that will be dealt with when it happens. Pre-emptive deletion, or even protection is overreacting. TheOneSean | Talk to me 14:50, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Like the other articles listed in this article's 'See also' section e.g. Chinglish, Singlish and Tinglish, the article itself, far from being racist, is well-written and informative with reliable, relevant sources to justify its retention.--Zananiri (talk) 15:26, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

They are just as meaningless as it is all simply "Incorrect Grammar" show me one reliable dictionary that mentions ANY of these silly slangs. Tyros1972 (talk) 17:23, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:28, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:28, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - multiple high quality reliable sources, including articles in a journal published by Cambridge University Press. Tyros, you seem to be laboring under the misapprehension that sources must be available online to be considered reliable; please read Wikipedia:Offline sources and WP:SOURCEACCESS. LadyofShalott 02:36, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - interestingly, a number are easy to find online, as added. Chris857 (talk) 03:17, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Academically sourced term [13][14] referring to incorrectly pronounced English from poorly translated Japanese phrases. The term "Japlish" which redirects to this article is mentioned in both OED [15] and Collins [16]. There might be a case for WP:DICDEF if it were a single sentence but it clearly contains more information than its Wiktionary entry. Funny ^Pika! 07:53, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Michig (talk) 06:59, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Paulo Retre[edit]

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

He has not played a professional senior game at club or international level. Article fails WP:NFOOTBALL. Also fails WP:GNG. Simione001 (talk) 06:57, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 06:57, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 06:57, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 06:57, 20 May 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 May 20. Snotbot t • c » 07:09, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:17, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - He has not played in a fully pro league or received significant coverage, meaning the article fails WP:NSPORT and WP:GNG. Sir Sputnik (talk) 03:02, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 18:34, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails GNG and NFOOTBALL. Argyle 4 Life^talk 06:28, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. I don't see how this is a Good Article--I'd tag it for excessive detail right off the bat. However, SNOW keep applies to this AfD as well as to the previous two. I'm tempted to let this run just so this can pile up a ton of keeps, but there's no point in that. The horse is dead, now leave it be. Drmies (talk) 01:37, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Who Made Huckabee?[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

This fails WP:GNG. GA status and WP:ILIKEIT do not a notable article make. There are secondary sources, yes, but there's sources for everything on TV; don't see anything explaining how this made a notable impact on media, culture, etc. Instaurare (talk) 07:03, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Snow keep. It's frankly ludicrous to AfD a well-sourced GA that was speedy-kept at its previous AfD only two months ago and kept at the AfD before that. Dricherby (talk) 11:18, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy keep was a non-admin closure; as stated, GA status does not create notability. Instaurare (talk) 17:38, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - It doesn't matter who closed it: the consensus was clear. GA status does not create notability but one of the GA criteria is that an article be well-sourced and that demonstrates the "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" required by WP:GNG. We have sources from the New York Times, ABC, Fox all of which have this "feud" as their main subject. Hey, there's even a citation to Chuck Norris and if that doesn't make a subject notable, nothing does! What? Chuck Norris isn't mentioned in WP:GNG, you say? Oh well. Stoopid guidelines. Anyway, where was I? Oh, yeah. I think I was going to say something about how WP:GNG also doesn't set the unreasonably high bar that you've chosen that TV shows must make "a notable impact on media, culture, etc." WP:ILIKEIT is a strawman, since nobody has argued along those lines. Dricherby (talk) 19:43, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets GNG as the previous AFD determined. Being a good article has nothing to do with notability. AIRcorn (talk) 12:32, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep. Per Aircorn. 069952497a^{Comments and complaints}_{Stuff I've done} 14:27, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Well sourced & written and per all of the above reasons as well. DP76764 (Talk) 14:44, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Easily meets WP:GNG. Also per reasons stated previouly by various commenters--Cjv110ma (talk) 20:34, 20 May 2013 (UTC).[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Michig (talk) 06:56, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In Search of the Titanic[edit]

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

Misplaced AfC submission that I moved to preferred location. User re-copy pasted it back into main space. Unnotable and fails WP:GNG. Ramaksoud2000 ^{(Talk to me)} 06:32, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Non-notable. DoctorKubla (talk) 07:08, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: An Italian children's animated minor film, released in Italy under the name Tentacolino. We need look to look for Italian language sources. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 09:34, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Userify or move to AfC until notability can be established. Ansh666 01:08, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Notability either exists or it doesn't. It's also unlikely that this is an up and coming type of thing because this has been out since 2001. Ramaksoud2000 ^{(Talk to me)} 01:43, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As Michael stated above, sources may be in other languages (Italian, in this case). Just because it's "not notable" in English-language sources doesn't mean it's not notable. I'd say wait and see if the creator can find sources demonstrating notability, otherwise it can just live either in userspace or in AfC. Ansh666 02:20, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In light of recent developments, I elect to follow the crowd and call for delete. Ansh666 01:21, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(off-topic) Ramaksoud200 - I think Ansh666 meant "until notability can be demonstrated." If a famous person dies and the only reliable sources that report it are in print and no Wikipedia readers notice, can we put it on Wikipedia? No, because even though it's notable, notability hasn't been demonstrated to any Wikipedia editors. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 01:23, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I meant that there has been plenty of time for reliable sources to pick up on this and write about it, and it only takes a couple minutes to see if something is notable. Ramaksoud2000 ^{(Talk to me)} 01:26, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:12, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:12, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:12, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete So we've established there arn't any English language sources that demonstrate notability? We're just assuming there might be some Italian ones for this minor film? Personally, I don't speak Italian, thats why I contribute the English Wikipedia. Unless an Italian speaking Wikipedian can root out some sources, this one has to be a WP:NRVE delete IMO. Pol430 talk to me 12:54, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and start over or just plain delete - it appears that this film is notable - for just how awful it is. Any article about the film that does not focus primarily on what makes the topic notable is arguably (and in this case definately) outside of Wikipedia's educational mission and should be deleted. I would settle for keeping this as a stub though. However do not keep under any circumstance until I or someone finds reliable sources. All I've found so far are blogs, web-boards, and a few "movie review" sides of unknown quality that I'm not willing to say qualify as WP:RS. There are WP:RS sites that confirm the films existence (e.g. IMDB), but they don't provide substantial coverage needed to establish notability. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 00:51, 22 May 2013 (UTC) Delete - insufficient WP:RS sources in Google News under Italian name and insufficient WP:RS sources in a Google web search to establish notability. See comments on article's talk page. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 01:16, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I just went through a pretty exhaustive Google search for reliable sources on this film and found next to nothing. The only time that I got any results was through the News-Archives option http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&gl=us&tbm=nws&q=Tentacolino&oq=Tentacolino&gs_l=news-cc.3..43j43i53.53601.55647.0.55986.11.3.0.7.0.0.183.523.0j3.3.0...0.0...1ac.1.wt2qYRTNl1s#q=Tentacolino&hl=en&gl=us&tbm=nws&source=lnt&tbs=ar:1&sa=X&ei=z5ieUcaCDaGT0gHqoYGgDA&ved=0CCEQpwUoBQ&bav=on.2,or.r_qf.&bvm=bv.47008514,d.dmQ&fp=2732f4dc3fcb8ebf&biw=1170&bih=800.

The first result appears to be discussing this film, but unfortunately the link seems to be taking me to the website's homepage, instead of the article itself. Another one of the results has already been mentioned on the Talk page and lists the film as one of several to be nominated for some award. Here is the link for that one [17]. The only other result that I was able to find is this [18], which contains a biography of the film's producer and lists this as one of the film's that he worked on. I don't think that the first result provides significant coverage, know that the other two do not, and have no idea about the reference to Segnocinema that is already included in the article. Taken together though, these four probably count for something. Whether they are enough to justify the existance of this article, I'll leave to others to determine. I assume that they most likely are not, but still, it seems a shame to delete this, since it is a real film that was professionaly made and theatrically released. --Jpcase (talk) 00:09, 24 May 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. L Faraone 00:50, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

List of ecchi anime[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

"The list fails WP:SALAT as it contains an overly vague inclusion criteria with little not no bases on reliable sources." Basicly nothing has changed since the last AfD here, inclusion into the list is about one's personal point of view. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 04:06, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 04:09, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 04:10, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Evano1van(எவனோ ஓருவன்) 06:10, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unlike hentai, what is or isn't ecchi isn't very clearly defined, and what is or isn't can only ever be based on the opinion of the viewer. This isn't any more a potential list subject than List of sexy musicians or List of weird movies would be. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:52, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Ecchi is clearly defined and we have a category for it also. Category:Ecchi anime and manga Amazon.com has 209 results for the word ecchi. [19] Do any of the packages or official description of these things call it that? Reviews from reliable sources use the term such as this one from Crunchyroll [20]. The Google custom search for reliable sources for Anime and Manga [21] shows "About 2,120,000 results" for "ecchi". Dream Focus 14:42, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ecchi as pointed out before, is used as a synonymy for "perverted", it is very broad in nature and as such is labeled as a genre. Romance and comedy are also genres but you do not see List of Romantic anime and manga or List of comedy anime and manga now do you? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 18:30, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Romantic comedy anime and manga exists so of course you could make it into a list if you wanted to. Dream Focus 19:36, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As I said below, I do not think ecchi is a genre, but a broad description that an anime has some sexually suggestive content or the like. I think something like List of romance anime would be a reasonable article topic (and note that there is a List of romance manga), but I still don't think a list of ecchi anime is an appropriate article topic. Calathan (talk) 22:50, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Assuming the nominator means WP:SALAT instead of WP:SALT here. I agree with the nom and several of the informed opinions at the last AfD that the criteria is too subjective for us to create a list without compromising our integrity commitment to be neutral and avoid original research. Them From Space 15:24, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I have changed that thanks. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 18:21, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Just because there is a problem with it doesn't mean you should delete it. The term is also NOT English only and Japanese works refer to these titles as 'H', literally etchi/ecchi. Noted works include To Love Ru, Love Hina and while it is debatable depending on your definition, Futari Ecchi which explicitly describes itself as ecchi in the title. The issue here is that Western and Japanese terms do not agree with one another. It has its own dictionary definition as a subgenre.[22] And is classified at ANN as such.[23] While a little subjective; formal listings could be an easy criteria to cite if you wish. Just don't delete it because its not perfect. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 15:34, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The ANN entry you provided is an unreliable source as it is the encyclopedia part and user edited (WP:OR) as for the dic definition what falls under that definition can be taken many ways. "Characterized by light, playful sexual themes and imagery." Okay how far does light and playful go before it is dubbed hentai? (An example). - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 18:36, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The lexicon portion of ANN's encyclopedia is not user edited, but can only be edited by encyclopedia staff. Users can submit suggestions for additions, but cannot add them themselves or change any of the content. I would probably consider the lexicon to be a reliable source, unlike the main encyclopedia. Calathan (talk) 22:30, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - While the term ecchi is used by reliable sources, I don't think reliable sources generally classify individual anime as being ecchi. While it would probably be possible to find reliable sources that say a few of the anime on this list are ecchi, I don't think it would be possible to find such sources for most of them. Basically, I think the list is based on fan classifications or original research, not on reliable sources. The topic also seems too broad and non-defining of the works in question to be appropriate for a list or category. Being ecchi is neither a genre nor a subject of the anime, but instead is just a designation that they have sexually suggestive content or nudity (but not enough to be pornography). Calathan (talk) 22:43, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Michig (talk) 06:53, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yonex word meaning[edit]

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

PROD (concern: Article is an unsourced poorly-written dictionary entry that reads like an essay) removed by author. The article is now less poorly written, but no more encyclopedic than before. Ignatz mice•talk 03:26, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, Wikipedia is not a dictionary, article has no sources. JIP | Talk 04:11, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:53, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:53, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. At best, this is a dictionary definition, but even in its "less poorly written" form its meaing is unclear. Cnilep (talk) 02:06, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I'm not usually a big fan of NOTDICT but this is a classic case of it. And the part in the original version about China using their veto power in the U.N. to force the OED not to include the word is pure crankery, some remnants of which remain in the present version. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:12, 21 May 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 deletion A7. (Non-admin closure) AllyD (talk) 20:37, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Mika Narumi[edit]

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

Japanese searches come up with no significant RS, only some mentions on blogs and YouTube of a failed audition. Official blog seems to be dead. Fails WP:GNG. Michitaro (talk) 02:25, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Michitaro (talk) 02:26, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete. Looks like a candidate for speedy deletion (CSD-A7), as the article does not even indicate why the subject might be notable. --DAJF (talk) 02:40, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete. Per DAJF. 069952497a^{Comments and complaints}_{Stuff I've done} 14:39, 20 May 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. L Faraone 00:50, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Paloma Varga Weisz[edit]

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

Lack of sources, references and inline citations. external links are insufficient to prove notability. DAR (talk) 02:13, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Clearly notable artist. Article is salvageable. Frieze Magazine [24], Artnet [25], NY Times [26], and that she is collected by the MoMA [27] will fulfill WP:GNG and WP:ARTIST. These strong citations are not in the article.--Nixie9✉ 04:23, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I have added six strong references, including the 3 above. Her work was recently exhibited in the MoMA. I removed all the gallery exhibitions. Still needs much work.--Nixie9✉ 14:30, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - References look good. Thank you for cleaning up the article. DAR (talk) 02:16, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:45, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:45, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:45, 21 May 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. J04n(talk page) 12:58, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Elise Jackson[edit]

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

This bio is for an actor with no significant coverage in independent reliable sources to establish notability. The award for a screen play is minor and does not establish notability. Whpq (talk) 11:44, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Faizan -Let's talk! 12:52, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Faizan -Let's talk! 12:52, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Faizan -Let's talk! 12:52, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Faizan -Let's talk! 12:52, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Faizan -Let's talk! 12:54, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:GNG. Faizan -Let's talk! 12:55, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mkdw ^talk 01:13, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I agree that it fails WP:GNG. Uberaccount (talk) 02:57, 20 May 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. This decision does not rule out a proper redirect discussion on the talk page. J04n(talk page) 11:42, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Helen Smith (New Zealand politician)[edit]

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

unref blp (for 7 years). Doesn't meet WP:POLITICIAN Boleyn (talk) 13:02, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ - Having visited the digital archives for the NZ Herald and the Christchurch Press, I've learned that Helen Smith the the namesake of a community room in Porirua, with no trace of coverage about her as the subject of articles. While I am, in general, highly inclined to keep biographies of non-living elected minor party politicians, it does not seem that this subject meets muster according to our General Notability Guideline, nor is election to the Porirua City Council sufficient to pass the special guideline for politicians. Carrite (talk) 17:14, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I will get out of the way per the argument of Unscintillating below... Carrite (talk) 03:05, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. czar · · 18:45, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. czar · · 18:45, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I found evidence of the 1975 and 1978 elections in the national library:

It is not a lot, but it shows that the material in the article is credible. Unscintillating (talk) 02:34, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Here is a source with one sentence that shows that the topic is legendary (whether or not wp:notable):

http://www.stuff.co.nz/dominion-post/news/local-papers/kapi-mana-news/3910348/Pukerua-Bay-artist-seeks-seat-on-Porirua-council

I'm also seeing many links to the Helen Smith Community Room at the Pataka Museum, that seats ~~over~~ ~~300~~ 80, and has held at least 150, but don't have a source that connects the room to the topic. There is also a Helen Smith Family Award again with an unclear connection to the topic, but the reference to art in both the one source and this mention makes it likely that more research can provide a connection. Unscintillating (talk) 03:29, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no question.Deb (talk) 17:12, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This looks interesting, from a writer for the British Manchester Guardian, printed in the U.S. The Spokesman-Review, Sep. 9, 1973, "Helen Smith is the first elected representative of a new political party which sent shock-waves through both the established parties at New Zealand's general election, and which each of them would dearly love to assimilate before next time." Unscintillating (talk) 03:01, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep or incubate~~ Satisfies WP:ANYBIO #2, fails WP:V. ~~As per the recent ruling at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Charity Engine, not all closers support WP:V, so depending on the ruling regarding WP:V, this might be either a keep or an incubate.~~ Unscintillating (talk) 03:22, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Changing !vote to Delete and redirect to Values Party IMO, in addition to satisfying WP:N, this article severely fails the WP:V policy. WP:Deletion policy states, "If the article's content severely fails the verifiability or neutral point of view policies, but when the topic is notable, the article may be reduced to a stub or completely deleted by consensus at WP:AfD." See also the discussion at WP:Verifiability#Should closers of AfD discussions use the incubator for articles that pass WP:N but fail WP:V?. Unscintillating (talk) 22:48, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or mention in context of Porirua City Council - does not have enough notability to stand on her own. True there is a room at the Council's museum named after her and a prize but not really even nationally (NZ) significant NealeFamily (talk) 05:51, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - An article that has been unsourced for seven years is not likely to be sourced in the near future. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:56, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Here are two references to her from Index NZ; Evening Post 10 September 2001 p18 & Dominion Post 17 January 2008 pB7. I would not expext to find references to her in the Auckland “Herald” or Christchurch “Press”. But local body politicians are not generally notable, apart from Mayors. Hugo999 (talk) 00:10, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That is now six sources. One more source, and the dead link has persisted since 30 April, but the snippet shows wp:notability:

[28] "Helen Smith spent her final months recounting her life, and now the pages of her memoir Keep Telling Stories... She was a Porirua city councillor for nearly 30 years and a driving force ... " Unscintillating (talk) 03:51, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Question I must admit to being puzzled, now that we know that this topic's election sent shock-waves through NZ, and the election was reported around the world, why is there anyone left questioning wp:notability? Unscintillating (talk) 03:51, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Unscintillating has done an excellent research job here. I've copied and pasted the external links into the article, obviously they need more work, but they're now available for readers and can be worked on. This still doesn't meet WP:POLITICIAN but now seems WP:GNG has been established. Change vote to keep Boleyn (talk) 05:09, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J04n(talk page) 00:46, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - covered in multiple reliable sources, some international, which establish her notability. Although her initial election received the vast majority of coverage, the article written after her death shows this is not just ONEEVENT. Good to see the sources listed in the article, making this information verifiable. It would be better to reference each statement with them, but that needn't affect this discussion. Warofdreams talk 09:32, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mkdw ^talk 01:09, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep on the merits, as per Unscintillating's fine work. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 19:34, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Values Party; subject received passing mentions in articles where the Values Party received significant coverage such as this mention in the Los Angeles Times, and the Spokane Review, but outside of that the subject herself has not received significant coverage from non-primary reliable sources and thus fails WP:GNG or WP:ANYBIO. That being said the subject is a notable first for the Values Party, and as the subject received brief mention in relation to the party, but is not considered notable per WP:POLITICIAN a mention of the subject of this AfD in the article about the party maybe able to preserve the article as a search term.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 06:20, 27 May 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. This decision does not rule out a proper merge discussion on the talk page. J04n(talk page) 11:44, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Christmas on the International Space Station[edit]

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

Questionable notability and limited scope. Concerns raised during August 2012 PROD have still not been addressed. While I prefer deletion, I would not object to merging with religion in space. W. D. Graham 20:02, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or merge to Religion in space -- or possibly a Religion on the ISS article, if there's enough information to spin out from the parents. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:11, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, recommend expansion with examples from Mir and other spaceflights. Fotaun (talk) 20:17, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Fotaun, how can we expand an article about Christmas on the ISS with information from Mir?--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:03, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Question Any reason this is up for deletion as opposed to merging with the main ISS article? Sædon^talk 20:57, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It is so trivial that putting anything more than a couple of words into the ISS article would be giving it undue weight compared to the rest of that vast topic. --W. D. Graham 21:05, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Even so, that parts of the article could be merged I think means this should be a merge discussion first and a deletion discussion second, though I am inclined to agree it is a trivial subject. Sædon^talk 21:30, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

keep "Delete because it's too small" is not a good reason for deletion. Notability is already met by sources.

Expansion to a broader Christmas in space would be a better target for growth than losing it within a myriad minor sections under ISS. Andy Dingley (talk) 21:13, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with International space station or Religion in space, unless potential for a substantial expansion can be demonstrated. Sædon^talk 21:32, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into International space station. And why is there a page titled Religion in space? Why not start a page for every single item and practice in space. My vote is for haircuts in space. I think there should be an AFD for that too!MartialArtsLEO (talk) 23:15, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - celebration not merely religious (though I suppose I could live with a merge to either ISS or religion in space, just not my preference), and adequate sources and notability. The "it's not big enough" argument doesn't fly with me; usually the bandwidth taken in these AfD discussions would be better spent expanding the article in question should there be adequate sources out there to keep it - which there allear to be. Montanabw^(talk) 21:58, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Both Montanabw and Andy Dingly are making straw man arguments. Nobody has suggested that the article should be deleted because of its current size; the question is whether there is enough potential scope beyond simple trivia to expand it into a viable article. In addition, I still question the necessity of an article for this topic in terms of notability and encyclopaedic value; the concept of the article is more sensationalistic than encyclopaedic, and we don't need articles for every little thing that happens on the ISS, simply because it happens on the ISS. --W. D. Graham 22:23, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- - A straw man possibly, but it's one that you introduced in the nomination, "Questionable notability and limited scope." Notability is sourced, narrow scope is irrelevant. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:59, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, or merge to Christmas in Space. Notable, unusual topic.--Dmol (talk) 22:35, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. czar · · 23:40, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep 3 independent RS'es means GNG is met, and no other argument for deletion has been advanced. Jclemens (talk) 01:00, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect Utterly, utterly dumb topic. History2007 (talk) 19:15, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mkdw ^talk 00:19, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Consensus at time of relist was legitimately split between 'merge' and 'keep' on guideline/policy based rationales. Relisting per Jclemens request. I would encourage the avoidance of "it's notable", "I don't like it", and WP:HEY by adding information from other topics. Mkdw ^talk 00:29, 20 May 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 Arundel Cathedral.--Ymblanter (talk) 07:23, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Elizabeth Stratford[edit]

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

This was previously CSDed as a copyvio, but some of the wording has been changed. I would suggest a redirect to Arundel Cathedral, since I cannot find any sources that mention her at all except her own website and her biography on the cathedral website. Fails WP:NMUSIC and the WP:GNG. Gilderien Chat|List of good deeds 14:01, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. czar · · 14:25, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. czar · · 14:25, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Agree with nom, but even the redirect would not seem worthwhile.Truth or consequences-2 (talk) 15:28, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect To Arundel Cathedral. I agree that this fails WP:GNG and WP:MUSICBIO, but the redirect is plausible and valid, and a blurb can be added to the cathedral article. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 17:51, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a 'first' - "first woman to be appointed to the senior music post at an English cathedral". Bearian (talk) 17:16, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment that is not cited but in any case it seems rather non-descriptive and non-specific - what counts as senior? And what counts as music? Head of the Choir? Head of Music? Organist? --Gilderien Chat|List of good deeds 18:05, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Senior in this case means Director of Music, not Assistant Director of Music, surely? Read Sarah Baldock's page. Senior post. It means the person in charge. Church music terminology generally dictates that the primary function of the Director of Music or Organist and Master of the Choristers is training the choir but actually the role also assumes responsibility for all other aspects of music running in the workplace. So her role at Arundel is to oversee all the music taking place in the building for all services, like you'd expect the Director of Music at Westminster Abbey to do? I still feel there is huge prejudice against this entry without cause. Salicus (talk) 00:05, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar · · 23:45, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mediran (t • c) 00:16, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Arundel Cathedral to preserve notable information. Uberaccount (talk) 03:02, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I could go along with that. Bearian (talk) 18:39, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per Uberaccount -- Arundel is a Catholic cathedral; most of these enjoy little more prestige than parish churches. This contrasts with Anglican cathedrals, but even for them, the director of music would need to achieve soemthing more to merit notability. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:05, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Very unfair comment as regards the prestige of Catholic Cathedrals. Have you visited Arundel? It isn't a debate about the Cathedral or the prestige thereof, it relates to notability and a number of Anglican directors of music are on Wikipedia without being anything more than Anglican directors of music. You run the risk of exhibiting prejudices against the same set up in the Roman Catholic Church just because it is Roman Catholic. Salicus (talk) 00:05, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment By definition a cathedral is the site of a Bishop's seat, equally in both the RC and the Church of England. It is therefore intrinsically of more importance than a parish church, in both the RC and CoE. This particular one is the replacement of a pre-Reformation cathedral, and is itself a grade I listed building.I do not see howe anyone could say it is of secondary importance. That of course doesn't prove the notability of its director of music. DGG ( talk ) 16:36, 26 May 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. L Faraone 00:53, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Paper Tiger Studios[edit]

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

This studio seems to only have inherited notability. It doesn't seem to pass WP:CORPDEPTH and has been tagged with ((notability)) for almost three years now. BDD (talk) 20:38, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. --BDD (talk) 20:41, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. --BDD (talk) 20:41, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mediran (t • c) 00:15, 20 May 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 Bobby Chacon . JohnCD (talk) 15:24, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Valerie Chacon[edit]

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

I see no independent significance outside of being the wife of Bobby Chacon. Delete. --Nlu (talk) 06:29, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. czar · · 08:03, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:15, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mediran (t • c) 00:14, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Bobby Chacon. I have added the reference to the boxer's article. Thincat (talk) 08:36, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Thincat. Notability is not inherited, but she is connected to Bobby Chacon's career. 069952497a^{Comments and complaints}_{Stuff I've done} 14:35, 20 May 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. L Faraone 00:53, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Darkhorse Analytics[edit]

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

I don't see any wide ranging significant coverage to meet WP:CORP. nothing at all gnews, which is unusual for a company that has been around for 5 years. LibStar (talk) 02:25, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. czar · · 02:46, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. czar · · 02:46, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:09, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mediran (t • c) 00:13, 20 May 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. L Faraone 00:54, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Cloth[edit]

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

no indication of the importance of this film. This is a straight to DVD release, not a theatrical release. Fails WP:FILM Gtwfan52 (talk) 00:13, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Keep - the release date, per the article, is July 2. Uberaccount (talk) 03:04, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. The coverage here is light, but it is just barely enough to make it pass notability guidelines for a small film of this type. We're not going to see coverage for this of Iron Man 3 proportions, but this is just enough for right now. I have no problem with incubating this, though, if there's enough of an argument to say delete. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 03:19, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Get a life Tokyogirl79. Tokyogirl79 and her little gang are on a personal crusade. She is unbiased and is not the gatekeeper of Wickapidia. A release date is sufficient. Get a job. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.115.65.183 (talk) 22:17, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see why you are arguing with Tokyogirl79 who agrees with you in this case! Graeme Bartlett (talk) 08:23, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Um... ok... you are aware that I was the one who found all of the sources and salvaged the article, right? And besides, a release date is not sufficient to save an article. To show notability we have to show coverage in reliable sources such as news reports about the film, movie reviews, and the like- which I found. Even if I hadn't found the sources and was voting to delete (which I am not), please do not make personal attacks on Wikipedia. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 03:58, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The release date is utterly irrelevant, since it wasn't mentioned in the nom. Also, wtf is with the IP's comment? (and what is Wickapidia?). I'd probably lean towards incubating the article myself. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 10:13, 27 May 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. L Faraone 00:54, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Tu'pest 2[edit]

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

Fails WP:NALBUM as it is a non-notable "greatest hits" album, with no evidence of having charted or passing GNG. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 10:32, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. czar · · 14:30, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bulgaria-related deletion discussions. czar · · 14:30, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 00:43, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mediran (t • c) 00:13, 20 May 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. L Faraone 00:54, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sri Durgaparameshwari Temple Montimar[edit]

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

Unsourced since at least October 2011. GBooks shows only mirrors; GSearch shows only mirrors, Facebook and Blogspot. Not notable. Sitush (talk) 12:42, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. czar · · 14:28, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. czar · · 14:28, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. czar · · 14:29, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 00:40, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mediran (t • c) 00:12, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Manchi keeping the history so anyone can merge and reference some of the material if thought appropriate. Thincat (talk) 08:25, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Nothing is sourced, so I don't even know what could realistically be merged. MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:58, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. In addition, there are tens of thousands of temples in India - probably even in each state of India - and while storage is cheap, issues of transliteration mean that there would probably need to be multiple redirects before each of these could be usefully merged/redirected. The more I look at the subject of this article, the less sure I am that it even exists. - Sitush (talk) 04:47, 25 May 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. In view of the low participation, this is a WP:SOFTDELETE; as with a PROD, the article will be restored on request at WP:REFUND, but may then be renominated. JohnCD (talk) 09:47, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Grynch[edit]

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

Non notable hip hop artist. Koala15 (talk) 14:53, 6 May 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 May 6. Snotbot t • c » 15:04, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. czar · · 15:47, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:57, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 00:38, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mediran (t • c) 00:11, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete does not meet WP:MUSICBIO. no major awards, no charted albums, singles. no indepth coverage LibStar (talk) 08:06, 20 May 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 without projudice to recreate once reliable sources are found.--Ymblanter (talk) 07:27, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

E-Dawg[edit]

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

Non Notable musician. Koala15 (talk) 19:49, 6 May 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 May 6. Snotbot t • c » 21:50, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. czar · · 22:25, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. czar · · 22:25, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 00:37, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mediran (t • c) 00:10, 20 May 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 Hieroglyphics (group). J04n(talk page) 13:02, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

DJ Toure[edit]

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

Article does not meet notabillity guidelines for music. Koala15 (talk) 19:35, 6 May 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 May 6. Snotbot t • c » 21:48, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. czar · · 22:25, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. czar · · 22:25, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 00:36, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mediran (t • c) 00:10, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to his band, Hieroglyphics (group), where he is already mentioned. He does not appear to be individually notable. --MelanieN (talk) 22:21, 23 May 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. L Faraone 00:54, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

P.E.S.O.[edit]

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

Non notable musician with no coverage. Koala15 (talk) 19:57, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: This is a musician that is not notable nor does the article provide any information or sources. This is most likely some guy trying to be known by creating a wikipedia page about himself. Newsjunky12 (talk) 1:28 PM EST, 20 May 2013.

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2013 May 6. Snotbot t • c » 22:13, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. czar · · 22:24, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:26, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 00:34, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mediran (t • c) 00:09, 20 May 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 Gender inequality in China. Michig (talk) 06:47, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sexism in China[edit]

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

Original reasearch, POV-riddled synthesis essay. Article would need a complete rewrite in order to comply with wiki policy. ^{Alles Klar,} Herr Kommisar 07:15, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Gender inequality in China (note that gender equality does not 100% translate as sexism) but with absolutely no prejudice to recreate the article. The subject is clearly notable. Mkdw ^talk 07:42, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect without prejudice per Mkdw - and Der Kommisar, you might even want to be WP:BOLD and just do that now. There's nothing in the page history that requires deleting - it's just not a good article. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 07:55, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Move Gender inequality in China content to this namespace. The WP topic should conform to the standard wording of these articles. Racism in India Sexism in India Racism in Poland ; this is the accepted WP pattern .-Samsara9 (talk) 11:51, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Arguably, 'Sexism in (country)' is actually not the status quo. See Gender inequality in Thailand, Gender inequality in Australia, Gender inequality in Tonga, Gender inequality in Liberia, Gender inequality in Sudan, Gender inequality in El Salvador, Gender inequality in Honduras, Gender inequality in the English Caribbean, Gender inequality in India, Gender inequality in the United States, etc. The reason for this is that 'gender equality' or inequality covers a wider range of study that includes sexism such as demographics and gender imbalance. 'Sexism in China' would be a legitimate sub article. Furthermore, not sure why you included 'Racism in (country)' because technically 'Gender inequality in (country)' follows the same naming convention; being "(subject) in (country)". Keep in mind that despite being two words, it's one subject. Mkdw ^talk 19:47, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Poorly written. If you want to create the page, you should write much more sourced contents.--Syngmung (talk) 15:15, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Typical knee-jerk reaction As usual, my stalker/vandal has deleted all my content, and then exactly as I said would happen editor #3 steps in, and says, 'hey this is a really small stub.' I am preparing an RfC or AI for the vandal, and then we can resume the regular draft. -Samsara9 (talk) 01:48, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Observe the timestamps. The comment you're replying to was left by someone who saw your version of the article. I actually added the only reliable source the article has ever had. But whatever. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 02:13, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:27, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:27, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Gender inequality in China. This article is in such a poor shape that in the version I am reading it doesn't discuss sexism in China in any referenced or significant way, making it a fork of the gender inequality article. Now, the topic in itself is notable, but I don't see a reason to keep this poor stub alive when a much better, referenced subject on related topic exists. Feel free to ping me on talk if this is expanded, although I'd encourage the author to focus on improving their Sexism in South Korea article instead. Learn how to write one good article before creating a series of poor ones. That said, I very much appreciate the starting contributions; those are important topics and we badly need someone to write up on those. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:48, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Gender inequality in China per above sound analyses. Cavarrone (talk) 06:45, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fai zan 10:23, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:NOTAVOTE Ansh666 01:12, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to gender inequality in China in concurrence with Mkdw, NorthBySouthBaranof, Samsara9, and Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Newsjunky12 (talk • contribs) 18:17, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per above and maybe userify content as a reminder of what doesn't work here. Ansh666 01:12, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect, but please retain history itself, as it may be useful in the future for research and quality improvement purposes. — Cirt (talk) 18:43, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I would redirect per WP:SNOW, but also merge whatever useful was in the prior version that was cited. Bearian (talk) 18:45, 21 May 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.